SHAHULHAMMED THIVANOLI,TIRUNELVELI vs. ITO, WARD-5, , TIRUNELVELI

The registry has noted delay of 79 days in filing the appeal. Considering the period of delay and reasons stated in the condonation application which is supported by an affidavit of Assessee, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and had filed his return of income on 23.08.2019 at an income of Rs.3,24,990/- belatedly for the assessment year 2017-18. The case of the assessee re-opened on the basis of information available that the assessee had made cash deposit(credit) of Rs. 1,83,64,770/- in his bank accounts during the F.Y. 2016-17 relevant to A.Y. 2017- 18. In the return of income filed for the Asstt Year 2017-18 the assessee has not shown the banking transaction. The source of income of the cash deposit has not verified. After obtaining necessary approval from the competent authority, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 21.11.2019 to the assessee. The assessee did not comply with the notice. Thereafter, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued on 16.01.2020. No compliance was made by the assessee. Since, the assessee has failed to discharge his onus as laid upon him in the Act and no explanation with regard to source of these cash deposits, it was presumed that the assessee has nothing to say in respect of cash deposit(credit) of Rs. 1,83,64,770/- in his bank account during the year. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.1,83,64,770/- treating as unexplained cash deposit u/s 68 of the Act was added in the total income of the assessee. The amount of tax was calculated @ 60% as per Section 115BBE of the Act. Assessee further challenged the ex-parte order of assessment u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act before the ld.CIT(A) who confirmed the order of the AO on merits.