SOMNATH KELAVNI MANDAL,NADIAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD EXEMPTION-BARODA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 937/AHD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 December 2024AY 2017-18Bench: Dr. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri TR Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)4 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. This was due to the assessee's consistent failure to appear before the Tribunal and prosecute the appeal, despite multiple opportunities and proper service of notices.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a trust managing educational institutes, deposited Rs. 51,17,000/- in demonetized currency. The Assessing Officer treated this as unexplained money as the explanation regarding school fees collected did not match the cash book.

What were the issues?

Whether the cash deposits made by the assessee were unexplained money, and whether the assessment order passed ex-parte was justified. The primary issue became the non-prosecution of the appeal by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH

Before: Dr. BRR Kumar & Shri TR Senthil Kumar

For Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. D.R

आदेश/ORDER PER : TR SENTHIL KUMAR , JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

1.

This appeal is filed by the assessee as against the appellate order dated 04-03-2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi arising out of the ex-parte assessment order passed u/s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) relating to the assessment year 2016-17.

2.

Brief facts of the case, the assessee is a trust managing various education institutes on government grant basis and self finance basis. During the financial year, the assessee made cash deposit in demonetized currency totaling to Rs. 51,17,000/- from New Gujarat Commerce College and N.K. Solanki School of Commerce. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to explain the above source. The assessee replied that the school fees collected from the students which were remained in hand as on 08-11-2016 were deposited in the bank account in old denomination notes. The above explanation was not accepted by the A.O. since it is not matching with the cash book maintained by the assessee. Thus, the A.O. made the cash deposit of Rs. 51,17,000/- as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act and demanded tax thereon.

3. Aggrieved against the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) who has given five opportunities of hearing between 27-01-2021 to 20-02-2024. None of the hearing notices were responded by the assessee, thereby ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

4.

Aggrieved against the same, the assessee is in appeal before us raising the following grounds of appeal:-

“1. In fact and in law the assessment of cash deposit into ICICI bank of Rs. 913000 u/s 69A on basis of assumption and presumption need to be deleted.

2. AO has grossly erred in applying section 69A to cash deposited in ICICI bank of Rs. 913000 from cash on hand which was duly explained and recorded in books need to be deleted.

3.

In fact and in law the assessment of cash deposit into Corporation bank of Rs. 4204000 u/s 69A on basis of assumption and presumption need to be deleted.

4. AO has grossly erred in applying section 69A to cash deposited in Corporation bank of Rs. 42,04,000/- which is student fee and duly explained and recorded in books, which is not justified, need to be deleted.”

4.1 Today is the 7th time of hearing of this appeal. Even in the previous hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee and the assessee has not given Authorization to any Representative to represent its case. During today’s hearing, notices were duly served on the assessee by RPAD and postal acknowledgment receipt is placed on record. However, none appeared on behalf of the assessee and no materials placed before this Tribunal to adjudicate the Grounds raised by the assessee. Thus, it is clear the assessee is not ready to persue above appeal. Therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed for non- prosecution.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →