VARINDER SINGH GOSAL,JALANDHAR vs. ITO WARD - 4(2) JALANDHAR, JALANDHAR
Facts
The assessee's return of income was selected for scrutiny regarding cash deposits of Rs. 1.03 crores in bank accounts. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment ex-parte, treating the deposits as unexplained under Section 69, due to non-compliance. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for similar reasons.
Held
The Tribunal set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, directing consideration of new evidence filed by the assessee. A token cost of Rs. 10,000 was imposed on the assessee for intentional neglect and non-cooperation in earlier proceedings.
Key Issues
The key issues were the source of unexplained cash deposits, the validity of statutory notice service, and the admission of additional evidence at the appellate stage.
Sections Cited
Section 69, Section 143(3), Section 144, Section 250, Section 143(2), Section 142(1), Section 282
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR
Before: SH. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL & SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA
Per Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.:
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT (A) NFAC,
Delhi dated 21.03.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which has emanated from the order of the ITO, Ward-3(2), Jalandhar dated 15.12.2017 passed u/s
143(3) r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2 I.T.A. No. 427/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 2. There was no appearance by the assessee or his counsel on repeated calls either
physically or in virtual mode, but an application for adjournment has been filed by the
assessee stating that the assessee is in Canada, and he has sought permission for
extension of stay, and has requested for adjournment on the said ground.
He has also filed a paper book containing 152 (one hundred fifty two) pages,
containing documents relating to sale of agricultural lands, information of loans
obtained from Tata Capital House Finance, copy of cash flow statement, copies of
passport, bank statement of Punjab National Bank and State Bank of India along with
various other documentary evidences and has also made an application under Rule 29
of the ITAT Rules, 1963 praying for admission of additional evidences.
Considering the grounds of appeal and the materials on record, and the fresh
evidence containing of 152 pages, now filed, we proceed to dispose of the case after
hearing the ld. D.R because adjournment will serve no purpose, because fresh evidence
needs to be verified by the A.O.
Brief facts emerging from records are that the assessee has filed his return of
income declaring a total income of Rs.2.85 lacs, which has been selected for scrutiny
for examination of the source of cash deposited in bank amounting to Rs.1.03 crores,
with Punjab National Bank A/c No. xxxxx76915 and in State Bank of India A/c No.
xxxxx89915 during the financial year 2014-15 (relevant to the assessment year under
3 I.T.A. No. 427/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 appeal). Various notices issued from the office of the Assessing Officer has not been
complied and in absence of any response to such notices issued and served on the
assessee, the assessment has been completed on a total income of Rs.1.06 crores (with
an addition of Rs.1.03 crores) by treating the entire cash deposits in bank account as
unexplained u/s 69 of the Act.
The matter carried in appeal before the ld. first appellate authority has been
dismissed for non-compliance to various notices issued from the office of the ld. first
appellate authority on various dates even after seeking an adjournment in course of
appellate proceedings (as per para 3 of the appellate order) which proves service of
notice. In absence of any response or any submission explaining the cash deposit, the
appeal has been dismissed without adjudication on merits of the case in absence of any
documentary evidences, being filed before the appellate authority.
Now, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal on various grounds contained
in Form No. 36 and the main grievance of the assessee is against valid service of
statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, and is aggrieved on account of non-
adjudication on the grounds of appeal on the basis of his submission contained in the
statement of fact.
The ld. DR relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the additional
evidences which the assessee now seek to produce has never been filed or produced
4 I.T.A. No. 427/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 before the lower authorities and these documentary evidences being produced now
after a long gap of 8 (eight) years cannot be accepted at its face value and there are
likely chances of the same being manipulated to accommodate the availability of cash
required for deposits of the same in bank account.
As such, he prayed for sustaining the appellate order (written submissions also
filed by the ld. DR is also taken on record).
We have heard the ld. DR and considered the materials on record and we find
that in course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer has made all possible
attempt to serve the notice on the assessee by all possible means, as provided u/s 282,
through speed post through affixation but in spite of the same there has not been any
response from the assessee.
In course of appellate proceedings, notices has been issued on three separate
occasions and also in the ITBA portal against which the assessee has sought
adjournment, but has never filed the documentary evidences and the requisite details
which he has now filed by way of this paper book along with application for admission
of additional evidences under Rule 29 of the I.T. Rules, 1963. Even now also the
assessee has not appeared and is not represented by his counsel either and has sought
for adjournment. However, in the interest of justice, these additional evidences
5 I.T.A. No. 427/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 consisting of 152 pages now filed before us cannot be ignored altogether but the same
cannot be accepted at its face value without verification regarding its authenticity.
As such, we set aside the matter back to the files of the Assessing Officer for de-
novo fresh assessment after considering the fresh evidences now filed before the
Tribunal and to complete the assessment as per procedure, after allowing reasonable
opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the assessee is also directed to file the
fresh evidence before the AO and to fully co-operate in fresh assessment proceedings.
Before concluding, we are of the opinion that there has been intentional neglect
on the part of the assessee in furnishing of documentary evidences before the AO and
also before the ld. CIT(A) in course of appellate proceedings. There is no reason
pointed out by the assessee as to why these documentary evidences (consisting of 152
pages) could not have been filed before the ld. first appellate authority when
adjournment has been sought, which indicates that he was fully aware of the ongoing
proceedings before the appellate authority and yet chose not to furnish evidence.
Considering the neglect and non-co-operative nature of the assessee, we deem it
fit and proper to impose a token cost of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) payable to the credit
of the ‘Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund’ within 30 days from the date of
communication of this order (evidence to be filed before JAO).
6 I.T.A. No. 427/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 15. With the above observations, we remand the matter back to the files of the ld.
Assessing Officer for de-novo fresh assessment after considering fresh evidence and
allowing proper and reasonable opportunity to the assessee of being heard.
We have not expressed any opinion on merits of the case and all issues are left
open.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in accordance with Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate
Tribunal) Rules, 1963 as on 26.02.2026
Sd/- Sd/- (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) (Udayan Dasgupta) Accountant Member Judicial Member *GP/Sr.PS* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The CIT concerned (4) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T True Copy By Order
