BINA KANWAR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD TONK, TONK

‘’Decision 8.1 After carefully considering the circumstances of the case, it is evident that the appellant has not pursued the present appeal with the requisite diligence. Throughout the appellate proceedings, no conclusive explanation or credible documentary evidence has been presented to challenge or rebut the findings of the Assessing Officer. Therefore, in the absence of any substantiated defense, the appeal is MS. BINA KANWAR , JAIPUR VS ITO, WARD - TONK being adjudicated based on the material available on record and on its merits 8.2 The appellant has contested the reassessment order dated 12.03.2023 passed under section 147 read with section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, primarily on the grounds that the assessment was conducted without proper jurisdiction, is time-barred, and violates the principles of natural justice Additionally. the appellant has raised objections regarding the addition of Rs. 74,69,180/- under section 69A, the charging of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C, and the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8.3 The re-opening of the assessment under section 147 of the Income-tax Act 1961, is found to be legally valid. It is evident from the records that the Assessing Officer had reasonable grounds to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The re- opening was initiated based on credible information received through the Insight Portal under the risk management strategy, which indicated substantial cash deposits in the appellant's bank account. The necessary approval was obtained as required under the provisions of section 151 of the Act. Furthermore, the appellant was duly notified and provided with sufficient opportunities to present their case. Given the circumstances and adherence to the procedural requirements under the law, the re-opening of the assessment is held to be valid and in accordance with the provisions of the Income-tax Act. 8.4 However, a perusal of the assessment records reveals that statutory notices under sections 148, 142(1), and show-cause notices were duly issued to the appellant. In response, the appellant sought an adjournment, oiling the unavailability of her counsel, and assured that submissions would be filled within a week. Despite this assurance, no submission was received thereafter. The appellant failed to avail of the opportunities provided and did not submit any explanation or evidence to substantiate her claims, either during the assessment or appellate proceedings. As a result, the Assessing Officer was entirely justified in completing the assessment based on the material available on record.

MS. BINA KANWAR , JAIPUR VS ITO, WARD - TONK 8.5 The appellant has contended that the cash deposit of Rs. 38,52,000/- in her bank account was sourced from capital withdrawals from the ADP (Association of Persons). However, no corroborative evidence, such as the AOP's bank statements, capital accounts, confirmation letters, or supporting resolutions, was furnished to substantiate this claim. The appellant's assertion remains unsupported by any verifiable documentary evidence. Furthermore, in Form No. 35, the appellant explicitly stated that she was not engaged in any business activity in her individual capacity and did not have any taxable income, which further undermines her explanation for the cash deposits. 8.6 In the absence of books of accounts or verifiable documents establishing the origin and movement of funds, the appellant has failed to discharge the onus placed upon her under section 69A of the Act. It is well established that mere oral explanations or unsupported assertions cannot sufficiently explain cash deposits. The nature and source of the substantial cash deposits remain unexplained, and the appellant has failed to demonstrate any error in law or fact in the action of the Assessing Officer. 8.7 In view of the foregoing, the addition of Rs. 74,69,180/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 69A, read with section 115BBE, is found to be both justified and in accordance with the law. The appellant has not provided any credible evidence to contest the addition or to highlight any procedural violation or legal infirmity. Therefore, the grounds raised by the appellant are without merit and are hereby dismissed.

9. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.’’ 2.2 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the prayed that the appeal of the assessee may kindly be restored to the file of the AO as the assessee was ex-parte before the lower authorities being not provided adequate opportunity of being heard.

2.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. In this case it is noted that the assessee is an individual and the return of income during the year under consideration was not filed. It is noted by the Department that the assessee had made cash deposits of Rs.74,52,000/- in the bank account held with State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur and the assessee had also earned interest on securities amounting to Rs.17,175/- from Bank of Baroda, Vaishali Nagar, Branch, Jaipur. Thus, in this case information was received by the Department from the Insight Portal which suggested that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in the case of the assessee for the year under consideration. It is noted from the record that the Department had sent various notices and show cause notices which were not responded by the assessee. Hence, the AO noted that the assessee has failed to submit any documentary evidence in respect of the source of cash deposits to her bank account during the year under consideration and he made addition of Rs.74,52,000/- u/s 69A as unexplained money and addition of Rs.17,175/- on account of interest income treating it as ‘Income from other sources’’. In first appeal, the ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO as the MS. BINA KANWAR , JAIPUR VS ITO, WARD - TONK assessee had not submitted any credible evidences to contest the addition made by the AO. It is an admitted fact that the assessee is ex-parte before the AO and also before the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, she could not put forth her defence. It was the bounded duty of the assessee to appear before the statutory authorities as and when called for. It is noticed that various opportunities were provided to the assessee for settling the issue but the assessee remained lethargic and unserious in pursuing her case. However, we are of the view that lis between the parties has to be decided on merits so that nobody’s rights could be scuttled down without providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Hence, the matter is restored to the file of the AO to decide it afresh by providing one more opportunity of hearing, however, the assessee will not seek any adjournment on frivolous ground and remain cooperative during the course of proceedings. Thus the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 2.5 Before parting, we may make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the AO shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by AO independently in accordance with law.