RAKESH KUMAR MATHUR,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(4) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ORDER PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 13-09-2023, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2009-10 wherein the assessee has raised the following ground of appeal. ‘’1. The ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of the AO as to making the addition of Rs.12,87,678/- u/s 69A of the Act being the cash deposits in the bank account in the name of the assesee which was opened and operated by someone else.

2 RAKESH KUMAR MATHUR VS ITO, WARD 4(4), JAIPUR 2. (a) The ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not deciding the application under Rule 46A for admission of additional evidence and affidavit. (b) The ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in deciding the case without considering the rejoinder of the asessee on remand report of the AO. © The AO erred in law and facts in not considering, not making any enquiry and not commenting on the additional evidences placed before the ld. CIT(A) and also not providing opportunity of being heard during remand proceedings. The AO was asked by the ld. CIT(A) to reexamine the additional evidence after submission of remand report dated 21-01-2019 but no compliance was made by him.

2.1 None appeared on behalf of the assessee when the case was called out for hearing. The Bench noted that no written submission was advanced by the ld. AR of the assessee to substantiate his case except an Index of Paper containing 60 pages which does not suffice the purpose to adjudicate upon the case of the assessee. However, in this peculiar situation, the Bench finds to dispose off the appeal of the assesee ex-parte based on the materials available on record. 3.1 Brief facts as emerges from the assessment order are that the AO made an addition of Rs.12,87,678/- as unexplained cash u/s 69A of the Act since the assesee had not advanced any explanation before the AO while making assessment u/s 148/143(3) of the Act. 3.2 Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A) who has also dismissed the appeal of the assessee with the observation that the assessee 3 RAKESH KUMAR MATHUR VS ITO, WARD 4(4), JAIPUR had failed to explain the source of such amount and has not offered satisfactory explanation before the AO at the time of assessment proceedings. The relevant para 12 and 13 of the ld. CIT(A) are as under:- ‘’12 As per the above provisions of the Act, if appellant is found owner of such money and it is not recorded in the books of account, the initial onus lies over the appellant to prove the source of cash credit and genuineness of transaction. In the present case, since appellant was aware of said account number maintained in ICICI Bank, Jaipur and the said account was opened by him or his employee as ‘’Salary Account’’ on behalf of the appellant, was really belong to him, the appellant. Therefore, the cash credit of Rs.12,87,678/- must belong to appellant but the appellant was failed to explain the source of such money and has not offered satisfactory explanation before the AO at the time of assessment proceedings. Hence, I have arrived at the considered decision that the money in question belonged to appellant and the AO was totally justified in addition the same i.e Rs.12,87,678/- as unexplained money u/s 69A to the total income of the appellant. The addition of Rs.12,87,678/- is confirmed and grounds Nos. 1 & 2 are dismissed.