GIRISH DEWANGAN, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(3), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), Delhi, dated 06.02.2023, which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O. under Sec. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 29.11.2019 for the assessment year 2013-14. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before me:

Succinctly stated, the assessee filed his return of income for A.Y.2013- 14 on 31.07.2013, declaring an income of Rs.4,67,820/-. On the basis of specific information received by the A.O, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s.147 of the Act. In compliance, the assessee had filed his return of income on 25.04.2019, declaring an income of Rs.5,38,590/-.

During the course of the assessment proceedings, it was observed by the A.O that the assessee had made cash deposits in his bank accounts, viz.

Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals) but without success.

The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal before me. As the assessee appellant despite having been intimated about the hearing of appeal had neither put up an appearance nor filed any application seeking adjournment, therefore, I am constrained to proceed with and dispose off the appeal as per Rule 24 of the 4 Girish Dewangan Vs. ITO-1(3), Raipur Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, i.e. after hearing the respondent revenue and perusing the orders of the lower authorities.

As is discernible from the orders of the lower authorities, it transpires that though the assessee had come forth with an explanation as regards utilization of the cash deposits in his bank account, but had failed to explain the nature and source of the cash deposits therein made by him. Accordingly, the A.O in the absence of any explanation forthcoming from the assessee, had held the same as an unexplained investment within the meaning of Section 69 of the Act. Also, the assessee had failed to avail sufficient opportunities which were afforded to him by the CIT(Appeals) and thus, despite having been preferred the said appeal had failed to put up an appearance before him.

Considering the aforesaid facts involved in the present case, I, finding no infirmity in the view taken by the A.O, who had rightly held the cash deposits made by the assessee in his bank account as an unexplained investment within the meaning of Section 69 of the Act, which had thereafter been upheld by the CIT(Appeals), uphold the same.

Resultantly, appeal filed by the assessee being devoid and bereft of any merits is dismissed in terms of my aforesaid observations.