MOONGILMADUVU DHARMARAJU SAMBATH,HOSUR vs. ITO, CIRCLE 1, HOSUR

आयकरअपीलसं./ 2017-2018 MoongilmaduvuDharmarajuSambath, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 3/589, 8th Cross Bharathi Nagar, Circle I, Arasanatty, SIPCOT-1, Hosur. Hosur 635 126. [PAN AMUPS8866Q (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ�क�ओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri. N. Arjunraj, C.A. ��यथ�क�ओरसे /Respondent by : Shri. G. Suresh, IRS, JCIT. सुनवाईक�तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 02.01.2024 घोषणाक�तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement : 10.01.2024 आदेश / O R D E R This appeal by assessee is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1043086620(1) dated 20.05.2022. The assessment was framed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Hosur for the assessment year 2017-18 u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’), vide order dated 27.12.2019.

:- 2 -: At the outset, it is noticed that this appeal was time barred by 2. 269 days and assessee has filed condonation petition supported by affidavit. Assessee contended that the delay in filing the appeal was due to the reason that assesseehad suffered fracture in right disclosed ruximal tibia in the month of July, 2022. The relevant details are in the petition which reads as under:- ‘’The delay in filing the present appeal is neither willful nor deliberate but due to circumstances beyond the control of the appellant. The Petitioner / Assessee had suffered from a Right Disclosed Ruximal Tibia Fracture in the month of July 2022 and subsequently the Petitioner / Assessee was availing medical treatment of Conservative Management from Gunam - Super Speciality Hospital. The medical certificate issued by the Hospital is enclosed herewith. The injury sustained by the Petitioner / Assessee coupled with frequent visits to the Hospital had resulted in the Petitioner / Assessee not noticing the passing of the impugned order. Subsequently, the passing of the impugned order was noticed by the Petitioner / Assessee when the Petitioner / Assessee had received recovery notice from the Income Tax Officer in the month of April, 2023’’.

Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the order of the ld. 3. CIT(A) dated 20.05.2022 was received on the very same day but assessee could not file the appeal because he was under medication due to fracture and he was not in a position to move. When this facts were confronted to ld. Departmental Representative, he could not controvert the above facts. By going through the reasons, I find that cause is reasonable and hence I condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.

:- 3 -: The only issue in this appeal of the assessee is as regards to the 4. ld. CIT(A) confirming the action of the ld. Assessing Officer in making addition of cash deposits made during demonetization period of specified bank notes amounting to ₹19,53,500/- as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. For this assessee has raised ground Nos. 1 to 10 which are argumentative and exhaustive, hence need not be reproduced. I have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and 5. circumstances of the case. I noted that assesseeis a contractor carrying on the business of running hotels at Hosur. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment for a reason that assessee had made cash deposits of specified bank notes during demonetization period amounting to ₹28,15,500/-. Assessee was asked to explain the source. Assessee has disclosed closing balance as on 08.11.2016 at ₹8,61,554/- and hence given credit to the same. Ld. Assessing Officer assessed the balance cash of ₹19,53,500/- as unexplained income of the assessee u/s.69A of the Act and taxed the same u/s.115BBE of the Act. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A).

Aggrieved, now the assessee is in appeal before us. Before me, ld. Counsel for the assessee filed comparative 7. turnover statement including gross profit and net profit of previous year i.e. 2016-17 and preceding previous year i.e. 2015-2016. He drew my attention to form 3CD filed alongwith return of income and the details are as under:-

No. Particulars Previous year Preceding previous year a Total 17153452 23250020 turnover of the assessee b Gross 7248866 17153452 42.26% 7672948 23250020 33% Profit/ Turnvoer c Net Profit 6978834 17153452 40.68% 1385304 23250020 5.96% d Stock-in- 17153452 % 23250020 % trade / Turnover He argued that the turnover has actually reduced in this year and the turnover is merely ₹1,71,53,452/- and there is no increase as in demonetization period. However, ld. Counsel for the assessee fairly :- 6 -: agreed that estimation can be made because he has already included this cash deposits made in specified bank notes in its turnover. I note that this argument cannot be accepted because assessee failed to file any evidence except the return of income for the assessment year 2017-2018, statement of total income, audited financial statement and tax audited report. Assessee is unable to show how this cash deposits of specified bank notes deposited during demonetization period is included in the total turnover. As the assessee failed to produce any evidence, I uphold the order of the ld. CIT(A) and that of the ld. Assessing Officer and dismiss the appeal of the assessee.