Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, VICE-
PER P.M. JAGTAP, VICE-PRESIDENT :
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Ahmedabad [“CIT(A) in short]” dated 03.10.2016 passed ex-parte whereby he confirmed the addition of Rs.7,42,62,300/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of cash deposits found to be made by the assessee in his bank account by treating the same as unexplained.
The assessee, in the present case, is an individual who filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 06.08.2012 declaring a total income of Rs.2,04,660/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny through CASS and a notice under Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” in short) was issued by the Assessing Officer to the assessee on 31.07.2012. There was, however, no compliance on the part of the assessee
Chetan Dhirajlal Tanna Vs. ITO AY : 2011-12 2 to the said notice as well as the subsequent notices issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 142(1) of the Act. As per the AIR information received by the Assessing Officer, cash deposits aggregating to Rs.7,42,62,300/- were made by the assessee in his bank account with Sarvodaya Commercial Co- op. Bank Ltd., Mehsana-Sabarmati Branch, Ahmedabad. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee failed to offer any explanation as regards the source of the said deposits made by him in his bank account in cash in spite of proper and sufficient opportunity afforded by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer, therefore, was left with no option but to complete the assessment ex-parte to the best of his judgment on the basis of material available on record. In the assessment so completed vide an order dated 28.02.2014 under Section 144 of the Act, the Assessing Officer treated the entire cash deposits of Rs.7,42,62,300/- made by the assessee in his bank account as unexplained and addition to that extent was made by him to the total income of the assessee.
The addition of Rs.7,42,62,300/- made by the Assessing Officer by treating the cash deposits found to be made in his bank account was challenged by the assessee in an appeal filed before the learned CIT(A). During the course of appellate proceedings, the learned CIT(A) fixed the appeal of the assessee for hearing on as many as 16 occasions. The assessee, however, either sought adjournment or did not attend the hearing. He also failed to offer any explanation as regards the source of cash deposits found to be made in his bank account in spite of sufficient and specific opportunity given by the learned CIT(A) in this regard. The learned CIT(A), therefore, proceeded to dispose of the appeal of the assessee ex-parte vide his appellate order dated 03.10.2016 whereby he confirmed the addition of Rs.7,42,62,300/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained cash deposits found to be made in the bank account of the assessee.
Chetan Dhirajlal Tanna Vs. ITO AY : 2011-12 3 Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal.
It is noted from the record that the appeal of the assessee was fixed for hearing initially on 07.02.2022. The assessee, however, sought adjournment and the appeal of the assessee thereafter was fixed for hearing on 27.06.2022. None, however, appeared on behalf of the assessee on 27.06.2022 nor any application seeking adjournment was filed. In order to give one more opportunity to the assessee, the hearing was adjourned by the Bench to 02.08.2022. The assessee again sought adjournment on 02.08.2022 and accordingly the hearing was adjourned to 07.09.2022. On 07.09.2022, again none appeared on behalf of the assessee. The Authorized Representative of the assessee, Advocate Vijay H. Patel, however, has filed a letter dated 07.09.2022 seeking permission to withdraw his appearance on the ground that no instructions are forthcoming from the assessee. Keeping in view this non-compliant and non-cooperative attitude of the assessee and the fact that sufficient opportunity has already been given to the assessee which he has failed to avail, this appeal of the assessee is being disposed of ex-parte after hearing the arguments of learned DR and perusing the relevant material available on record.
It is observed that proper and sufficient opportunity was given to the assessee by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings as well as by the learned CIT(A) during the course of appellate proceedings to explain the source of cash deposits found to be made in his bank account with Sarvodaya Commercial Co-op. Bank Ltd. The assessee, however, failed to offer any satisfactory explanation as regards the source of funds utilized for making the said cash deposits. Even during the course of appellate proceedings before the Tribunal, no explanation whatsoever has been offered by the assessee as regards the source of funds utilized for Chetan Dhirajlal Tanna Vs. ITO AY : 2011-12 4 making the said cash deposits in spite of sufficient opportunity afforded to him. Keeping in view this failure of the assessee, we find no justifiable reason to interfere with the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) confirming the addition of Rs.7,42,62,300/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of cash deposits found to be made in the account of the assessee with Sarvodaya Commercial Co-op. Bank Ltd. by treating the same as unexplained. The same is, therefore, upheld and this appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 12th October, 2022 at Ahmedabad.