RAMBIR SINGH,GURUGRAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), INCOME TAX
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found the assessee to be recalcitrant and lacking respect for statutory notices. In the absence of any controverting material from the assessee, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the findings of the lower authorities.
What were the facts?
The assessee failed to file a return of income and did not respond to notices from the Assessing Officer (AO) and the CIT(A). The AO made an addition of Rs. 69,28,147/- on account of unexplained cash deposits in the assessee's bank account.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition made by the AO on account of unexplained cash deposits is justified when the assessee failed to provide any explanation or respond to notices.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “F”, DELHI
(A.Y.2017-18) Rambir Singh, H.No. 765, Bhorakalan, Bilaspur, Gurgaon, Haryana 122413 ...... अपीलाथ�/Appellant PAN: CJEPS-3193-K बनाम Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, ..... �ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi अपीलाथ� �ारा/ Appellant by : None �ितवादी�ारा/Respondent by : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, SR.DR सुनवाई क� ितिथ/ Date of hearing : 06/01/2025 घोषणा क� ितिथ/ Date of pronouncement : 06/01/2025 आदेश/ORDER
PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the CIT(A)') dated 02.11.2023, for assessment year 2017-18.
Notice of hearing of appeal was issued to the assessee through RPAD as well as through email-id on the address as provided in Form No. 36 for hearing fixed on 25.07.2024, 15.10.2024 and 06.01.2025. The notice sent through RPAD on 14.05.2024 for hearing fixed on 25.07.2024 was received back un-served from (A.Y.2017-18) postal authorities. However, subsequent notices issued on 25.07.2024 for hearing fixed on 15.10.2024 and the notice issued on 15.10.2024 for hearing on 06.01.2025 were not received back, hence, deemed to be served. The notices sent to the assessee through email-id were duly served to the assessee. Despite repeated service of notice, the assessee failed to respond. Its seems that the assessee is not interested in pursuing appeal, hence, appeal is taken up for hearing with the assistance of ld. DR and material available on record.
Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra representing the department submits that the assessee has been non cooperative during assessment proceedings and has failed to respond to repeated notices issued by the Assessing Officer (AO). Even during First Appellate proceedings, the assessee has failed to respond to the notices issued by CIT(A) on merits. She submitted that during the period relevant to assessment year under appeal, the assessee had cash deposits of Rs.69,28,147/- in his bank account. No explanation whatsoever regarding source of cash deposits was given by the assessee, hence, the AO made addition of Rs.69,28,147/- u/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), treating the aforesaid amount has unexplained money. The decision of the AO was upheld by the CIT(A).
We have heard the submissions made by ld. DR and have examined the orders of authorities below. The assessee is engaged in trading of seeds and fertilizers. A perusal of assessment order reveals that no return of income was filed by the assessee for AY 2017-18 either u/s. 139 of the Act or in response to notice issued u/s. 142(1) of the Act. As per the information available with the Assessing Officer the assessee had deposited Rs.69,28,147/- in cash (including (A.Y.2017-18) Rs.8,48,000/- during demonetization period) during the period relevant to assessment year under appeal. The assessee failed to respond to notices issued by the AO, hence, the AO was constrained to pass assessment order u/s. 144 of the Act. In absence of any assistance from the assessee, the AO treating entire cash deposits in the bank account has unexplained money made addition u/s. 69A of the Act.
During, First Appellate proceedings again the assessee failed to respond to any of the notices issued by the CIT(A), hence, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by AO in assessment order.
Before the Tribunal as well the assessee has failed to respond to the notices. The conduct of the assessee shows that he has no respect for the statutory notices issued under the law. The assessee is recalcitrant. No submissions were made by the assessee to controvert findings of the authorities below, in the absence of any controverting material, we see no reason to interfere with the findings of First Appellate Authority.
More judgments on Section 69A
- Vishal Kumar Patel(HUF), Raipur vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), RaipurITA 595/RPR/2026[2017-18]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 875/RJT/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sutha vs. The State Tax Officer(Inspection-3)Madras · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- Anisha Busa vs. Sibar Institute Of Dental SciencesAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S. Sikka Motors PVT LTD vs. Union Of INDIA & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026