SANDIP KAILASAPPA LAKADE,PARBHANI vs. ITO, WARD, RANGE-27, HINGOLI, HINGOLI

None appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing. It was seen from the order sheet entries that in the earlier occasions also no one was appearing on behalf of the assessee. Under these circumstances, we deem it proper to decide the appeal on the basis of material available on record and after hearing the Ld. DR.

Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC in upholding the validity of re-assessment proceedings and thereby confirming the addition of Rs.1,55,38,905/- made by the Assessing Officer as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and has filed his original return of income on 20.12.2016 in ITR-4S. Therefore, the same was treated as invalid by the CPC. Subsequently on the basis of information available with the Assessing Officer that the assessee has deposited huge cash to the tune of Rs.1,55,38,905/- in the bank account maintained with M/s. Shri Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd during the year under consideration, the Assessing Officer, following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ashish Agrawal vide Civil Appeal No.3005/2022, order dated 04.05.2022, issued notice u/s 148A of the Act. Subsequently he passed an order u/s 148A(d) of the Act and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 27.07.2022. The assessee in response to the same filed his return of income on 27.08.2022 declaring total income of Rs.6,42,330/-. The Assessing Officer thereafter issued statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. However, the assessee did not file any submission in response to the same. The Assessing Officer thereafter issued a show cause notice asking the assessee to explain as to why the order should not be passed ex-parte u/s 144 of the Act.

Before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee argued that the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued beyond 3 years and the income of the assessee is below Rs.50 lakhs and therefore, such reopening of the assessment is invalid. However, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC noted that the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued after obtaining the approval of the competent authority well within time. Prior to the reopening of the assessment of the assessee, the Assessing Officer has taken all the legal steps before initiating action in terms of section 147 / 148. He therefore, rejected the grounds raised by the assessee challenging the validity of re-assessment proceedings. Since there was no argument on merit of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC did not adjudicate the same.

Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds:

We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that due to non-submission of any details regarding the source of cash deposited in the bank account maintained with M/s. Shri Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Co- operative Credit Society Ltd, the Assessing Officer, invoking the provisions of section 69A of the Act, made addition of Rs.1,55,38,905/-. We find the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC challenged the validity of re-assessment proceedings on the ground that the escaped income of the assessee is below Rs.50 lakhs and since the notice u/s 148 of the Act is issued beyond a period of 3 years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Therefore, such re-assessment proceedings are not in accordance with law. However, no argument on merit of the case was raised as appears from the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. A perusal of the assessment order shows that the Assessing Officer has reopened the case for escapement of income to the tune of Rs.1,55,38,905/- which is more than Rs.50 lakhs. Therefore, the ground raised by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC as well as before the Tribunal is liable to be quashed since the escapement of income is more than Rs.50 lakhs. Since no details were available regarding the source of deposit of Rs.1,55,38,905/- being the cash deposit in the bank account maintained with M/s. Shri Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd, therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69A of the Act is justified. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly dismissed.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.