Loading judgment…
Facts
The Assessing Officer made additions totaling Rs. 33,78,048 for AY 2012-13, including unexplained cash deposits, unexplained time deposits, and interest on time deposits. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal due to a lack of documentary proof regarding the sources of these deposits. The assessee, a small proprietorship, claimed limited knowledge of tax laws and stated the deposits were from shop collections and family savings.
Held
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to procedural defects reported by the Registry, specifically that the "Respondent name [was] wrongly filed" and the "Appeal not signed by assessee," which the assessee failed to remove. However, the Tribunal granted the assessee liberty to re-approach after rectifying these defects.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal should be dismissed due to procedural defects such as incorrect respondent name and an unsigned appeal, without addressing the substantive issues of unexplained deposits.
Sections Cited
Section 144, Income Tax Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI “SMC” BENCH: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT
ORDER
PER KUL BHARAT, JM :
The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by Ld.CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi dated 22.09.2023 for the assessment year 2012-13.
The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-
“This is to bring your kind notice that: a. The AO has made an addition of Rs. 33,78,048 as explained below: Particulars Amount (In Rs.) Income assumed u/s 144 Addition (Unexplained Cash Deposit) 17,01,100 Addition (Unexplained Time Deposit) 16,40,000 Addition-Interest on Time Deposit 36,948 Total Assessed Income 33,78,048 Total Assessed Income Rounded off 33,78,050 b. The assessee is a small proprietorship firm with limited resources, knowledge and understanding of the Income Tax Act, 1961. c. The assessee hired a tax professional for filing appeal with Commissioner of Income Tax but the appeal was filed without proper understating of the case and hence no supporting and documents were presented with the appeal. d. The appeal before CIT(A) got dismissed by stating: “The appellant made this general submission without any documentary proof explaining the sources of cash deposit of Rs. 17,01,100/- in IDBI Bank and Term Deposit of Rs. 16,40,000/- in HDFC Bank Limited during the F.Y. 2011-2012 relevant to the A.Y. 2012-2013. This shows that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Though the appellant submitted that the addition was made without verifying the transaction it is not explained as to what was the nature and sources of these deposits with IDBI bank and HDFC bank. The appellant has not provided any details of these deposits along with documentary proofs to disprove the addition made by the AO. In view of these facts and circumstance, I am constrained to uphold the addition made by the AO and dismiss this ground.” e. The assessee wish to submit that: i. The assessee runs a small electronics shops and the same was opened in the FY 2011-12 only. ii. Due to limited knowledge and understanding of finances the assesses deposited the collection from the shop in the savings account maintained by it. iii. The actual computation of Income for FY 2011-12 is reproduced below for your kind consideration: Particulars Amount (In Rs.) Turnover 29,80,000 Expenses 25,45,900 Total Taxable Income from Business 4,34,100 Income from other sources-Interest on 36,948 Time Deposit Total taxable Income 4,71,048 Tax Liability 28,105 Tax Already paid for FY 2011-12 28,898 Page | 2
Exemption Limit for FY 2011-12 for 1,90,000 Women Assessee below 60 years iv. The assessee has failed to file its Income Tax Return (ITR) and is ready to file it now along with applicable penalty if opportunity is provided by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer (AO). v. Apart from that the time deposit of Rs. 16,40,000 has been done from past savings of the family and the assessee possess documentary evidences for the same. f. Relief Sought i. To allow this appeal and take the facts of the case on record. ii. To send back the case to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer for reassessment. iii. To allow the assessee to file its Income Tax Return for FY 2011-12 (AY 2012- 13). g. The assessee has authorized CS Vishal Mishra bearing ICSI Membership No. A43036 and Certificate of Practice No. 16249 to represent the assessee before the tribunal, commissioner and the jurisdictional Assessing Officer for the purpose of this Income Tax case.”
At the time of hearing, no one attended the proceedings on behalf of the assessee. It is seen from the records that the Registry has reported following defects:-
[1]. “Respondent name wrongly filed in. [2]. Appeal not signed by assessee.” 4. I have heard Ld.Sr.DR for the Revenue and perused the material available on record. I find that the assessee is required to remove the defects but the defects have not been removed by the assessee. Under these facts, the Page | 3 appeal of the assessee is dismissed being defective. The assessee is however, given liberty to approach this Tribunal after removing the defects for recalling of the order.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.