MITHILESH PRASAD,MUZAFFARPUR vs. ITO, WARD- 3 (3), SAMASTIPUR

The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 01.08.2025 passed by the NFAC, Delhi u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’) for the assessment year 2017-18.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a dealer of M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOC) and derives income from the sale of LPG cylinders. For the assessment year 2017–18, the assessee filed his return of income declaring a total income of ₹6,04,460. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer made various Mithilesh Prasad additions and assessed the total income at ₹24,80,238, inter alia, on account of the following: 1. Unsecured loan from Shri Subodh Kumar Singh amounting to ₹6,25,000; 2. disallowance of expenses claimed in the Profit & Loss Account amounting to ₹617878/- 3. Cash deposits of ₹63,29,000 during the demonetisation period, out of which 10%, i.e., ₹6,32,900, was added under section 69A read with section 115BBE of the Act; and 3. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal and sustained the additions, inter alia, on the ground that the assessee failed to furnish confirmation of account from Shri Subodh Kumar Singh in respect of the unsecured loan, the assessee could not satisfactorily explain the cash deposits of ₹63,29,000 during the demonetisation period; and the assessee failed to justify the decline in net profit ratio as compared to the immediately preceding assessment year.

The assessee has now preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. However, despite issuance of notices, none appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, the appeal cannot be kept pending indefinitely and was heard ex parte with the assistance of the Ld. DR, who supported the orders of the lower authorities.