VIJAY SINGH,SALARPUR vs. ITO, WARD 1(5), ALWAR

Considering the above mentioned facts the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed.’' 2.2 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee prayed that the assessee may be provided one more opportunity to adduce the documents required by the AO as to the total addition of Rs.6,30,910/- u/s 69A of the Act so that the issue in question could be settled. 2.3 On the other hand, the ld DR objected to such submission of the ld.AR of the assessee and relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. 2.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. Brief facts of the case are that as per AIR information available on record and information received from bank u/s 133(6) of the Act that the assessee had deposited Rs.6,00,000/- in his bank account maintained in Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank. Thus the Department had concrete and enough evidences that the assessee had deposited cash amounting to Rs.6.00 las in his bank account during the assessment year 2011-12 whereas the assessee had not filed his return of income (ITR) for the relevant year. Notices were issued to the assessee but the assessee had SHRI VIJAY SINGH VS ITO, WARD 1(5), ALWAR not even made any compliance to these notices. Since the assessee had not made compliance of notices issued u/s 142(1) and no details in respect of source of cash deposit had been provided. Thus, the final show cause letter was issued on 13-11-2018 mentioning specifically therein that in case of non-compliance the matter will be decided on the basis of material available on record and on merits u/s 144 of the Act and no further opportunity will be granted. The AO noted that the assesssee neither filed any details nor attended the assessment proceedings. Hence, the cash deposits of Rs.6.00 lacs remained unverified by the AO and he treated this amount of Rs.6.00 lacs as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. Further the AO noted that the assessee had received an interest of Rs.30,911/- on FDRs. Since the assessee had not filed his return of income and therefore, interest income remained untaxed. Hence, the AO made addition of Rs.30,911/- to the total income of the assessee as income from Interest. Thus the total additionsmade in the hands of the assessee is Rs.6,30,910/- by the AO. In first appeal, the ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO as the assessee had not furnished any evidences to counter the order of the AO. Since it is an admitted fact that the assessee is ex-parte before the AO and also before the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, he could not put forth his defence. It was the bounded duty of the assessee to appear before the SHRI VIJAY SINGH VS ITO, WARD 1(5), ALWAR 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 his case for which a cost of Rs.2,000/- is imposed upon the assessee which will be deposited by the assessee in the Prime Minister Relief Fund when the assessee approach to the AO in the set aside proceeding. 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. 2.6 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.