SHRI MANZOOR AHMED BHAT,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2), JAMMU
Facts
The assessee, Sh. Manzoor Ahmed Bhat, deposited Rs. 20,41,820/- cash into his bank account, which was detected through AIR information. The Assessing Officer added this amount under Section 68 as unexplained cash credit due to the assessee's failure to provide satisfactory evidence for its source. The assessee claimed the source was the sale of his wife's jewellery and the amount was used to purchase property in Delhi, but did not provide documentary proof.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee consistently failed to appear or furnish evidence despite numerous opportunities before the AO, CIT(A), and the Tribunal itself (16 hearings). Since the assessee could not explain the nature and source of the cash deposit, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision. Consequently, the addition made under Section 68 was upheld.
Key Issues
Whether the unexplained cash deposit of Rs. 20,41,820/- into the assessee's bank account was rightly added under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, given the lack of evidence for its source.
Sections Cited
143(3), 143(2), 142(1), 133(6), 68, Rule 46A, Rule 34(4) of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR
Before: SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA & SH. BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH
Per Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.:
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order passed by ld. CIT(A)-2, Jalandhar (Camp Officer at Srinagar), which has arisen from the order of the AO, Ward 3(2), Srinagar, dated 20th December, 2011, passed u/s 143(3) of the Act,1961.
2 I.T.A. No. 599/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10
The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in Form No. 36 are as follows:
“1. That the order under appeal is against the law and facts of the case.
That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) has not been justified in confirming the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer on the basis of AIR information that the appellant has deposited the amount of Rs. 2041820.00 in view of Judgment of this Hon’ble Tribunal in the case of Amrik Singh.
That in addition and without prejudice to the above ground Ld. CIT(A) has also not been justified in holding that the cash has been deposited by the appellant in bank for purchase of property at Delhi.
That the appellant could not appear before the Ld Assessing Officer during the appellate proceedings only due to circumstances beyond the control of the appellant and therefore the order passed by the Ld CIT(A) is against the principle of natural justice.
That the confirming of demand of interest is illegal as legally no demand on account of tax could be created against the appellant
Any Other ground which may be urged and allowed at the time of hearing.”
The case was called on the date fixed for hearing on 27th May, 2025, but there 3.
was no representation on repeated calls and no adjournment application has been
filed before the Bench.
It is seen from order sheet entries, that this appeal has been fixed up earlier on
numerous occasions and as per date wise noting it is seen that on earlier fifteen
occasions the Ld A/R of the assessee, has filed application for adjournments citing
3 I.T.A. No. 599/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 various grounds sometimes pointing out medical issues (cough and cold), sometimes
praying for time on the ground of not being legally prepared to argue the case (lack of
papers) and citing various other reasons on different dates, and each time
adjournments has been granted to the assessee, which proves that notice has been
properly served and the assessee and his Ld Advocate , both are aware of the ongoing
hearing process. (The appeal memo in form 36 has been counter signed by one Mr.
G. Arora Advocate as authorized representative)
This is the sixteenth time the case is refixed for hearing (on the 27th May, 5.
2025), and there is no representation on repeated calls and there is no application for
adjournment either. We are of the opinion that no purpose will be served if this case
is adjourned any further and we are also of the view that the assessee is not interested
in pursuing the matter and the Ld Advocate on record is also not interested to argue
the case on merits, or for that matter has not even filed any written submissions in
support of his legal contentions in the grounds contained in the appeal memo.
The Ld. DR is present in the court and we proceed to hear him, consult the
materials on record and dispose of the appeal on merits.
The brief facts emerging from record is that the return filed by the assessee
declaring an income of Rs. 1. 85 lakhs has been selected under CASS and statutory
notice u/s 143(2) has been issued, followed by notice u/s 142(1), and one Sh. M
4 I.T.A. No. 599/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Yaqub Wani, A/R of the assessee represented the matter, praying for adjournment
(which proves that the assessee has received the notice and is aware of the ongoing
proceedings) and subsequently the matter was represented by one Mr Subhas C Datta
Advocate (as per information on assessment record).
The main issue pertains to a particular information gathered by the AO, from
the bankers u/s 133(6) of the Act ,that cash deposit of Rs. 20,41,820/-, has been
made by the assessee, in Jammu and Kashmir bank A/c , in its Chandni Chowk, Delhi
Branch , during the FY under appeal, and on the failure on the part of the assessee
and his Ld. AR, to explain the source thereof in spite of repeated opportunities, the
said amount of Rs. 20.41 lakhs has been added back u/s 68 of the Act to the returned
income.
The matter was carried in appeal before the first appellate authority and written
submissions were filed by assessee along with additional evidences containing copies
of bank account statement of J & K Bank, Chandni Chowk Branch, Delhi (A/c 4402)
and also of Srinagar Branch (A/c 24A), along with copies of agreement of sale of
property at Malvia Nagar, Delhi, which were admitted by the first appellate authority
under Rule 46A, consequently calling for remand report.
The copy of remand report was forwarded to the assessee for rebuttal and the
response of the assessee was taken on record, where the assessee has claimed to have
5 I.T.A. No. 599/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 made the cash deposit in bank, out of sale of jewellery belonging to his wife , but
could not produce any documentary evidence in support of such contention, in spite
of repeated opportunities, resulting in dismissal of the appeal.
Now the assessee is before the tribunal on the grounds contained in the memo
of appeal in form 36, and one of the main contention as arising from the grounds are
that no proper opportunity has been provided by the assessing officer and by the Ld
first appellate authority and as such the assessee could not appear due to
circumstances beyond his control.
The Ld. DR relied on the order of the Ld CIT ( A ) and also referred to the
assessment order to argue that it is an admitted fact as evident from the J & K Bank
statement and also from the written submission that the assessee has deposit the cash
in his Delhi bank a/c and has utilized the said amount for property purchase in Delhi
(as evident from appellate order para 4.3), but it is not the utilization part , but the
source of the deposit is under question and the same is required to be explained and
proved, and the assessee has not filed any documentary evidence or details in support
of the sale of jewellery of his wife , as claimed , and in absence of any proper
explanation whatsoever, the addition is to be sustained and he prayed for upholding
the order of the first appellate authority.
6 I.T.A. No. 599/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 13. We have heard the Ld DR and consulted the materials available on record and
the factual contents of the assessment order and the observation of the Ld. CIT (A),
and we are of the opinion that it is admitted fact that cash has been deposited in bank
by the assessee, in his own bank account and as per narration in the CIT (A) order
(para 4.3 ) the said amount has been utilized for purchase of house property by the
assessee himself , which points to the fact that the ultimate beneficiary of the said
amount is also the assessee himself .
The nature and source of the cash deposit has not been explained by the
assessee with supporting documentary evidence at any stage whatsoever, and in this
case there has not been any dearth of opportunity provided to the assessee, at all
stages , and for all practical purpose, if the assessee (or his Advocate ) really had the
documentary evidence of sale of jewellery in their custody, the same could have been
easily presented before the tribunal, at any time, during the last fifteen occasions
when adjournments has been sought and allowed.
As such we are of the opinion that the assessee has not been able to explain the
nature and source of the cash deposited in the bank account in J&K bank (Delhi
branch) as discussed in above paragraphs, and under the circumstances we have no
hesitation in upholding the order of the Ld CIT ( A ) on this issue .
7 I.T.A. No. 599/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 16. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed being devoid of merits.
Order pronounced in accordance with Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate
Tribunal) Rules, 1963 as on 07.07.2025
Sd/- Sd/- (Brajesh Kumar Singh) (Udayan Dasgupta) Accountant Member Judicial Member *GP/Sr.PS* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The CIT concerned (4) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T True Copy By Order
