Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PATNA BENCH,
Before: SHRI MANISH BORAD & SHRI SONJOY SARMA]
ITA No. 172/PAT/2019 Jitendra Singh AY 2004-05 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PATNA BENCH, (VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA) [BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER] I.T.A. No. 172/PAT/2019 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Jitendra Singh Vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Patna Princeton Niketan, 4, Mirambika Apartment, Boring Road, Patna (PAN: ADLPS 9662 E) Appellant Respondent
Date of Hearing 18.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement 06.09.2022 For the Appellant None For the Respondent Shri Rupesh Agrawal, Sr. DR
ORDER PER SONJOY SARMA, JM: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A)-1 Patna dated 10.05.2018 [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). The assessee in this appeal has taken the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the ld. assessing officer has erred in law in picking up the return for selective scrutiny assessment and that his action amounts to defiance of the CBDT instruction. 2. For that the ld. assessing officer and the CIT(A) has further erred in law in invoking the provisions of law contained in section 147 of the Act and that the assessment order passed u/s 143(3)/147 is illegal, bad-in-law & void ab-initio. 3. For that the assessment order is bad-in-law and void ab-initio in terms of the jurisdiction on the case has been transferred from one AO two another AO without serving any notice u/s 127 of the Act and the new AO has failed to serve any notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. 4. For that the ld. assessing officer has erred in law in making the addition of Rs. 6,91,050/- as unexplained cash deposit into bank and CIT(A) erred in confirming the same.
ITA No. 172/PAT/2019 Jitendra Singh AY 2004-05 5. For that the ld. assessing officer has also erred in law in invoking the provisions of section 234-B & 234-C and in charging the interests there under at Rs. 71,714/- and Rs. 8,041/- respectively. 6. For that the humble appellant craves for the leave of the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) to take, raise, press plead and/or argue any other ground or grounds as may be necessary hereinafter.”
At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 310days on the part of the assessee in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of the said delay and keeping in view the reasons given therein, we are satisfied that there is a sufficient cause for the delay of 310 days on the part of the assessee in filing this appeal before the Tribunal and delay in filing the instant appeal is accordingly condoned.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. The assessee filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2004-05 on 18.10.2004 by declaring total income of Rs. 1,20,000/- and survey u/s 133A of the Act was carried out at the business premises of the assessee. In the course of survey operation, it was found that the assessee had made substantial deposit by way of cash in his bank account in Allahabad Bank SBI. It was also found that during the relevant financial year, the assessee has deposited a sum of Rs. 6,66,500/- by way of cash and Rs. 40,550/- by way of cheque/draft in his bank account No. SB 12464 maintained with Allahabad Bank. In the course of assessment proceedings of the case, the AO requested to explain the source of cash deposits and other deposits in the said bank account and in support of the claim of the assessee submitted a cash flow statement before the AO. Further, a statement of affairs was also submitted with the return of income in which loan amount of Rs. 13,87,840/- had been shown where the AO from the verification of cash flow statement, it was found that the assessee could explain for deposits of Rs. 3,000/- made on 23.06.2003 and of Rs. 13,000/- on 08.09.2003 and unable to offer any explanation in respect of cash deposits of Rs. 6,91,050/- and due to this, the AO invoke the provisions of section 68 of the Act. Considering the submissions made by the assessee, The AO added a sum of Rs. 6,91,050/- to the income of the assessee and assessed u/s 143(3)/147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
ITA No. 172/PAT/2019 Jitendra Singh AY 2004-05 4. Dissatisfied with the above order passed by the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee raised almost six grounds and which were dealt separately by the ld. CIT(A). During the appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(A) in response to the notice of ld. CIT(A), no one appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any representative in compliance to notice issued by the ld. CIT(A). However, the appeal of the assessee was decided by the ld. CIT(A) on the merits of the case and the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee and sustained the addition made by the AO.
Being aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the assessee preferred instant appeal before this Tribunal raising altogether six grounds of appeal. However, at the time of hearing no one appeared before the Tribunal to address the issues before us although registry has given notices upon the assessee as per the address available in the Form No. 36 as such we have no other option but to decide the appeal on the merits of the case. While we are going to decide the appeal of the assessee, the ground no. 4 goes roots of the matter, therefore, we are going to decide this issue first. In this ground, the assessee challenged the addition made by the AO of Rs. 6,91,050/- in respect of alleged unexplained cash deposit into bank by the assessee. While we are going to decide the issue on the board and examining the material available on the record, it is come to our notice that at the time of hearing before the AO, the assessee has submitted cash flow statement and other documents to substantiate its claim but assessee could not establish any sufficient evidence to support of its claim and accordingly the AO added the alleged sum as income of assessee. Even before the ld. CIT(A), assessee did not appear and never file any document to substantiate its claim against the order passed by the AO and as such the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee due to not finding any new material to support the claim of assessee.
At the time of hearing before us, also neither the assessee turned up nor any representative appeared before us to make submission in support of the grounds of appeal raised before us, we, therefore, no other option but to decide the appeal on the basis of the order passed by the authorities below and material available on record. From the order of AO as well as ld. CIT(A), it is come to our notice that a cash flow chart of Allahabad Bank A/. No. 112464 was submitted by the assessee before the AO. But from the cash flow chart,
ITA No. 172/PAT/2019 Jitendra Singh AY 2004-05 the ld. AO find that the assessee has shown just Rs. 3,000/- deposited on 23.06.2003 and 13,000/- on 08.09.2003 respectively and rest amount credited in the bank account remained unexplained by the assessee. Therefore, balance amount of Rs. 6,91,050/- added to the income of the assessee and this fact remained unchanged even before the ld. CIT(A) also. While going through the same, we did not find any infirmity in the order passed by the ld. AO as the assessee could not produce any document to substantiate its claim or even before the ld. CIT(A) also. We, therefore, do not like to interfere in the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) and we find that the appeal of the assessee was rightly dismissed by the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we affirmed the order passed by the ld. CIT(A).The remaining ground 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, there are no specific submission made by assessee or any documents submits before us in support of the same as such we dismiss the above grounds in limine.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order is pronounced in the open court on 06.09.2022 Sd/- Sd/- (Manish Borad) (Sonjoy Sarma) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 06.09.2022 Biswajit, Sr. PS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant– Shri Jitendra Singh. 2. Respondent – ACIT, Circle-1, Patna. 3. CIT(A), 4. CIT , 5. DR, ITAT, True Copy By Order
Assistant Registrar ITAT, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata