Loading judgment…
Facts
The appellant, engaged in dairy farming and cultivation, did not file a regular return of income for AY 2017-18. The AO, based on information of cash deposits during demonetization, made an addition of Rs. 7,45,000/- as unexplained investment. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) resulted in 50% of the deposits being treated as explained.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the appellant failed to provide any explanation for the cash deposits even before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) had already confirmed 50% of the addition. The Tribunal found no illegality or perversity in the CIT(A)'s findings.
Key Issues
Whether the addition made by the AO on account of unexplained cash deposits during the demonetization period is justified, and if the partial relief granted by the CIT(A) was appropriate.
Sections Cited
139(1), 142(1), 69
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM
Assessment Year: 2017-18 Nuju Basheer .......... Appellant Kannelapuzhakkal, Ayaparambu Cheruthana P.O.. Alappuzha 690517 [PAN: BIWPB7526F] vs. The Income Tax Officer, WD-3, Alappuzha .......... Respondent Assessee by: ------- None ------- Revenue by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 07.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 11.08.2025 O R D E R This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 27.11.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18.
Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual engaged in the business of dairy farming, cultivation of coconuts and paddy, etc. No regular return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was filed by the appellant for AY 2017-18. However, the Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Alappuzha (hereinafter called "the AO"), based on the information that the appellant made cash deposit in specified bank notes (SBN) of Rs. Nuju Basheer 9,50,000/- during demonetisation period in the account maintained with the Federal Bank, issued a notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act calling upon the appellant to file return of income. The appellant neither complied with the notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act nor filed the information called for. In the circumstances the AO brought to tax the cash out of total deposits made of Rs. 9,50,000/-, an amount of Rs. 7,45,000/- as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act.
Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order treated 50% of the cash deposits before demonetisation period as explained and the balance addition was confirmed.
Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal.
When the appeal was called on nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. Therefore, we proceeded to dispose of the appeal after hearing the learned Sr. DR.
I find that the AO made the addition on account of cash deposits in SBN made during demonetisation period as unexplained investment of the appellant for the failure of the assessee to prove the source of cash deposits. However, even before the CIT(A) the appellant had not filed any explanation in support of the said cash deposits. The CIT(A), however, considering the facts, 50% treated of the cash deposits made prior to the demonetisation period as Nuju Basheer explained and the balance addition was confirmed. In the absence of any evidence, the CIT(A) rightly confirmed the addition. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the findings of the CIT(A) and also find no merit in the appeal filed by the assessee.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 11th August, 2025.