PROMILA,ROHTAK vs. ITO WARD-3, ROHTAK

ORDER

PER KUL BHARAT, JM :

1. “That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is against law and facts.

2. That the Ld. CIT (A) erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellant by passing an ex-parte order for non appearance, although no proper opportunity of hearing was given by the Ld. CIT(A) to the appellant. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing in ex-parte order against the appellant, although Ld. CIT (A) has no power to pass an ex-parte order and is bound to decide the appeal on merits. 4. That the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 18,00,000/- made by the Ld. AO in the Assessment Order on account of cash deposits by the appellant in her bank account.

at the time of hearing.”

3. Apropos to grounds of appeal, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the impugned order passed ex-parte to the assessee. The assessee was not given adequate opportunity of hearing to represent her case. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that the notices issued by Ld.CIT(A) were not received by the assessee.

4. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A), who after considering the submissions, dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

5. Aggrieved against the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred appeal before this Tribunal.

5.1. “The AO was in possession of an information that the assessee had deposited an amount of Rs. 18,00,000/- in cash in her account with the Dena Bank during the year under consideration relevant to A.Y.2012-13 but the assessee had not filed her ITR. Therefore, the AO had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act. Accordingly, he issued a notice u/s148 of the Act on 28.03.2019 which was duly served on the assessee. The assessee did not respond to the said notice u/s148 of the Act. Thereafter, the AO issued statutory notices which were also not responded to by the assessee. Under the circumstances, the AO issued a show cause notice proposing to pass an order u/s144/147 of the Act taxing the cash deposit of Rs. 18,00,000/- in bank account with the Dena Bank. There was again no compliance from the assessee. Therefore, the AO finalized the assessment u/s.144/147 of the Act vide an order dated: 16.12.2019 for A.Y.2012-13 at the assessed income of Rs. 18,00,000/-. 5.2 The appellant has not filed any written submissions during the course of assessment proceedings or during the appellate proceedings. The AO had initiated the proceedings on the basis of an information that the assessee had deposited an amount of Rs.18,00,000/- in cash in her account with the Dena Bank during the year under consideration relevant to A.Y.2012-13 but the assessee had not filed his ITR. Therefore, the AO had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act. Accordingly, he issued a notice u/s148 of the Act on 28.03.2019 which was duly served on the assessee. The assessee did not respond to the said notice u/s148 of the Act. Thereafter, the AO issued statutory notices which were also not responded to by the assessee. Under the circumstances, the AO issued a show cause notice proposing to pass an order u/s144/147 of the Act taxing the cash deposit of Rs. 18,00,000/- in bank account with the Dena Bank. There was again no compliance from the assessee. Therefore, the AO finalized the assessment u/s.144/147 of the Act vide an order dated: 16.12.2019 for A.Y.2012-13 at the assessed income of Rs.18,00,000/-. In the statement of facts filed with the Form No.35, the assessee has stated that the assessee is a housewife and the amount deposited was from the sale proceeds received for sale of land. However, no proof of land holding by the assessee and sale thereof has been filed by the assessee. The assessee has not controverted the finding of the AO. In my considered view, the AO was justified in his findings and therefore, Page | 3 I do not see any reason to interfere with the well reasoned and speaking order of the AO.”