DHARMENDRA KUMAR,PATNA vs. ITO WARD 4 (2), PATNA, PATNA

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 28.07.2022 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).

Brief facts of the case are that based on an information obtained from AIMS database by using ITBA modules, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had deposited Rs.39,23,000/- in various bank accounts during the period of demonetisation. As the assessee did not file a return of income and the source of the said deposits were remained unexplained and unaccounted for during the relevant assessment year, the Assessing Officer believed that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer issued notices u/s 142(1) along with 148 of the Act to the assessee but there was no response from the assessee. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer obtained copies of assessee’s bank statements from the concerned banks where the assessee deposited cash during the demonetization period under the provision of section 133(6) of the Act and found that the assessee had deposited on different dates a total sum of Rs.1,10,67,604/- in different bank accounts. Therefore, the Assessing Officer treated the entire amount of Rs.1,10,67,604/- as unexplained and unaccounted income u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act by adding it to the total income of the assessee.

Dissatisfied with the above order, the assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) but the assessee has also failed to appear before the ld. CIT(A) despite serving notices. Consequently, the ld. CIT(A) passed an order by dismissing the appeal of the assessee by the upholding the order of the Assessing Officer.