Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR
Before: SHRI RAVISH SOOD
आदेश / ORDER
PER RAVISH SOOD, JM
The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(Appeals)-I, Raipur dated 18.11.2019, 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 17.12.2018 for the assessment year 2011-12. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal:
“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.21,17,000/- made by the ld. AO on account of cash deposited into saving bank account. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, urge, alter, modify or withdraw any grounds before or at the time of hearing.”
Succinctly stated, on the basis of information received by the A.O that though the assessee had during the year under consideration made a cash deposit of Rs.24.71 lacs in his saving bank account but had not filed his return of income, his case was reopened u/s.147 of the Act.
During the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee was, inter alia, called upon to put forth an explanation as regards the source of the cash deposits of Rs.24.71 lacs (supra). As the A.O was 3 Ghanshyam Prasad Sahu Vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Raipur not fully satisfied with the explanation advanced by the assessee as regards the source of the cash deposits of Rs.24.71 lacs (supra), therefore, he held the amount of Rs.21.71 lacs ( out of Rs.24.71 lacs) as the undisclosed cash deposits of the assessee.
Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals) but without any success.
The assessee being further aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal. As the assessee appellant despite having been intimated about the hearing of appeal had failed to put up an appearance, therefore, I am constrained to proceed with and dispose off the appeal as per Rule 24 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, i.e, after hearing the respondent revenue and perusing the orders of the lower authorities.
After having given a thoughtful consideration to the orders of the lower authorities, I find that the CIT(Appeals) on the issue of addition of Rs.21.71 lacs (supra) made by the A.O had categorically observed that besides filing an affidavit the assessee had not furnished any credible proof for having done any contract work. It was further observed by the CIT(Appeals) that the assessee could not discharge the onus that was cast upon him as regards explaining the source of cash deposits in question. It was also observed by the 4 Ghanshyam Prasad Sahu Vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Raipur CIT(Appeals) that the assessee had not furnished any such details like nature and quantity of work done, agreements, payments received, contract details etc. in support of his claim of having executed contract work. It was further observed by the CIT(Appeals) that the A.O had pointed out that neither there were any cash deposits in the previous year or in the subsequent year, nor the assessee had shown any income from contract work in either of the said years. The CIT(Appeals) was of the view that as no satisfactory explanation was furnished by the assessee, therefore, the appeal filed by him being devoid and bereft of any merit was liable to be dismissed. For the sake of clarity the relevant observation of the CIT(Appeals) are culled out as under:
“4. I have considered the grounds of appeal, gone though the submission of the appellant and seen the order of the AO. I find besides the above affidavit the appellant has not furnished any credible proof for having done any contract work which he had received the above payments. I agree with the AO who held as under :- "The whole cash deposited were made in only 3 days which does not prove that the assessee has deposited the above cash from work of contract. Further, the assessee has not deposited any cash in previous year and next year nor has shown any income from contract work in any year. In view of the above, out of the total cash deposit, Rs.3,00,000/- deposited on 04.10.2010 is assumed assessee's previous saving and balance amount of cash deposited of Rs.21,17,000/- is added back to the total income of the assessee as undisclosed cash credit." The onus was on the appellant to explain the sources of the cash deposited by him in his bank account which he has 5 Ghanshyam Prasad Sahu Vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Raipur failed to do so. The Apex Court in various decisions have held that it is upon the assessee to prove satisfactorily the source and nature of certain amount of cash received during the accounting year. Where the assessee fails to prove satisfactorily the source and nature of a certain amount of cash received the AO is entitled to draw the inference that the receipts are of assessable in nature [A. Govindarajulu Mualiar V. CIT 34 ITR 807]. Further in the case of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif V. CIT reported in 50 ITR 1 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that if the assessee disputes liability for tax it is for him to show either that the receipt was not income or that if it was it was exempt from taxation under the provisions of the Act. In the absence of such proof the Assessing Officer is entitled to treat it as taxable income. I find that the appellant besides furnishing an affidavit regarding the persons from which he received the cash no other details such as nature and quantity of work done, agreements, payments received, contract details etc. have been furnished by him. The AO also has pointed out that there are no cash deposits in previous years nor in the subsequent year nor has shown any income from contract work in any year. Since no satisfactory explanation has been furnished by the appellant there is no merit in the appeal which deserves to be dismissed.”
On the basis of the aforesaid observations, I am of the considered view that the order of the CIT(Appeals) on the issue in question is well-reasoned and does not call for any interference. Thus, the Ground of appeal No.1 raised by the assessee is dismissed in terms of the aforesaid observations.
Ground of appeal No.2 being general in nature is dismissed as not pressed.
6 Ghanshyam Prasad Sahu Vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Raipur
In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in terms of the aforesaid observations.
Order pronounced in open court on 10th day of November 2022.