SURESH NARAYAN DOLAS,AURANGABAD vs. ITO 1(4) AURANGABAD, CANNOUGHT PLACE AURANGABAD

आदेश / ORDER

Per G. D. Padmahshali, AM; This appeal is filed u/s 253(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act [‘the Act’] by the assessee challenging the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘NFAC’] DIN & Order ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1054958487(1) dt. 08/08/2023 passed u/s 250 of the Act.

Suresh Narayan Dolas Vs ITO AY 2012-13 2. Briefly stated facts anent to the case are that; 2.1 The assessee is an individual and a non-filer. Upon the information from ITD/ITBA system that a cash of ₹14.34 Lakhs was deposited into saving bank account maintained with State Bank of India, the Ld. AO after recording the reasons and obtaining approval from competent authority invoked his jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act to assess the aforestated as escaped income. In the event all notices including show-cause-notice [‘SCN’] issued to the assessee remained un-responded, the Ld. AO framed an assessment to the best of his judgement u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act and brought to tax the entire amount cash deposited into his SB a/c by placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in ‘CIT Vs General Motors Finance Ltd.’ reported in 254 ITR 449 (Del.)

2.2 When aforestated addition is assailed in an appeal before first appellate authority, the Ld. NFAC accorded as many as six opportunities of hearing vide notice dt. 28/01/2021, 15/06/2023, 22/06/2023, 12/07/2023, 19/07/2023 and 26/07/2023, however these remained futile. In absence of written submission and for non-prosecution of appeal, the Ld. NFAC in the light of Hon’ble Apex Court decision rendered in ‘CIT Vs B. N. Bhattacharjee’ reported in 10 CTR 354 (SC) was constrained to dismiss the appeal ex-parte reiterating the Ld. AO version of reasoning.

2.3 Aggrieved assessee brought up this appeal challenging the addition on solitary ground of merits as spelt out in the grounds raised in appeal memo.