VIDHUN JOSEPH PHILIP,NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM vs. ITO, WARD 2, TIRUR, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM

Brief facts of the case are that appellant is an individual and no return of income was filed under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act for AY 2019-20. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Tirur (hereinafter called "the AO") issued a notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) based on the information that the appellant made cash deposits of Rs. 1,06,09,350/- during the previous year relevant to AY 2019-20. Accordingly, a notice u/s. 148 of the Act Vidhun Joseph Philip was issued on 31.03.2023. In response to the notice u/s. 148, the appellant filed return of income on 14.04.2023 disclosing Nil income. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the AO vide order dated 01.02.2024 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act at a total income of Rs. 17,98,991/-. While doing so, the AO treated the cash deposits made in the bank account as business receipt of the appellant and estimated the income at 10% of the total sales. Accordingly, made addition of Rs. 14,23,061/-.

Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) contesting that the estimation of income at 10% is excessive. However, the CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO.

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, I proceeded to dispose of the appeal after hearing the learned Sr. DR.

The AO had treated the cash deposits as business receipts of the appellant and estimated the income at 10% of the gross receipts. The appellant had not brought any comparable case on record. Therefore, the AO was right in estimating the income at 10%, which was rightly confirmed by the learned CIT(A). Therefore, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the order of the CIT(A).