Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI
ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 25.02.2019 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Gurgaon relating to Assessment Year 2015-16.
Brief facts of the case as culled out from the material on record are as under:-
Assessee is an individual who electronically filed his return of income for A.Y. 2015-16 on 22.01.2016 declaring income of Rs.4,21,630/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and accordingly notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and served on the assessee. AO has noted that though the notices were served on the assessee but none appeared on behalf of the assessee. He therefore, framed assessment u/s 144 of the Act vide order dated 12.12.2017 assessing the total income at Rs.1,22,05,410/-.
Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before CIT(A) who vide order dated 25.02.2019 in Appeal No.605/17-18 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. While dismissing the appeal, CIT(A) noted that despite various opportunities granted by the CIT(A) none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal and has raised the following grounds:
1. “That the CIT Appeal - 1 Gurgaon, has erred both in Law and on the facts in passing appellate order without giving proper opportunity to the assessee. 1.1 That the learned CIT Appeal -1, Gurgaon has erred both in law and on the facts in not appreciating the facts that the appellant was prevented by circumstances for not attending the appeal on date of hearings. 1.2 That the order of the CIT Appeal -1. Gurgaon deserves to be set aside
2. Without prejudice to the above it is submitted that 2.1 The Ld. Assessing Officer has not appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case and the legal provision correctly, and has erred both in facts and in law in adopting cash deposit of Rs.1,17,83,775/- despite the facts that assessee has deposited in cash only Rs.67,13,000/- (including cash deposit of Rs.14,40,000/- which is withdrawal from assessee account). That cash deposit adopted by Ld. A.O. is unjust to the assessee and should be deleted. 2.2 The Ld. Assessing Officer has not appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case and the legal provisions correctly and has erred both in facts and in law in determining cash deposit of Assessee Bank Accounts. Six Bank Accounts are reported by Ld. A.O. in his order out of which Two Bank Accounts does not belongs to the assessee. The Two Bank Accounts reported by the Ld. AO is not justified and should be deleted. 2.3 The assessee was prevented by sufficient cause for not submitting required details and documents hence may be allowed for submission of additional evidence, if necessary during the course of appellate proceeding.”
5. The case file reveals that the appeal was listed for hearing on various occasions in the past but on all those dates the assessee did not appear before the Tribunal despite notices being sent through RPAD nor any application was filed by the assessee seeking adjournment. It is also seen that the notice issued by the Registry through RPAD was returned unserved twice with the postal remarks “recipient not found”. In case of any change of address, it is for the assessee to file revised Form No.36 duly mentioning the new address. Preferring an appeal does not mean merely formally filing the appeal but also taking all the necessary steps to effectively pursue the appeal. The fact that the assessee has not appeared before AO which resulted into passing the assessment order u/s 144 of the Act, not appearing before CIT(A) and Tribunal despite various opportunities granted to the assessee shows that the assessee is not serious in pursuing the appeal filed by him and the negligent approach of the assessee. In the absence of any co-operation from the side of assessee, we don’t find any reason to keep the matter pending before us. Considering the aforesaid facts, we have no option except to dispose of the appeal on merits, after hearing the Ld. D.R.
6. The sole grievance is with respect to the addition of cash deposits which has been added by the AO.
7. AO has noted that on perusing the bank statements it was noted that there were cash deposits and other credits in the Bank account. Assessee was asked to furnish the source of cash deposits as well as other credits. AO noted that no details were furnished by the assessee. AO therefore called for information u/s 133(6) of the Act from HDFC Bank and IndusInd Bank. On the basis of the information received and material on record, AO noticed that the assessee deposited cash aggregating to Rs.1,17,83,775/- in his saving bank accounts (the details of which are listed at para 3 of the order). AO has noted that no reply explaining the cash deposits and other credit were furnished by the assessee despite various opportunities. AO therefore treated the aggregate cash deposits of Rs.1,17,83,775/- as deposit from unexplained source and made its addition u/s 69 read with section 115JB of the Act.
8. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before CIT(A). CIT(A) noted that despite various opportunities granted to the assessee there was no appearance from the side of the assessee. He therefore, for the reasons noted in the order, upheld the order of AO. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal before Tribunal.
Before us, Learned DR supported the order of lower authorities and further submitted that the assessee has neither appeared before the lower authorities or before the Tribunal which indicates that assessee does not have any submissions to make. He therefore submitted that in such a situation order of lower authorities be upheld.
We have heard the Learned DR and perused the material available on record. The main issue in the present appeal is with respect to the addition of cash deposits made by the AO. The assessee in the ground of appeals has stated that assessee had deposited cash of Rs.1,17,83,775/- in his bank account as against the addition of cash of Rs.1,17,83,775/- made by AO and further out of the six bank accounts reported by the AO, two bank accounts does not belong to the assessee. We find that before the AO the assessee did not appear and, therefore, the AO had no option, except to pass ex-parte orders under section 144 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and frame the assessment on the basis of material available before him. Before CIT(A) also no submissions were made by the assessee. Before us, all no material has been placed by the assessee to support his contentions and to point out any fallacy in the findings of lower authorities. When the appeal is filed before the appellate authorities by the assessee himself against the orders of the lower authorities, it is expected that the assessee shall put forth some documentary evidences in support of his contentions as it is the duty of the assessee to lead evidence in support of its claim and for the adjudicating authority to decide upon the sustainability of the claim on the basis of the evidence led by the parties before it. However, the assessee did not appear before any of the authorities. In this view of the matter and in absence of any contrary material brought on record to rebut the findings of lower authorities, we find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) and thus we dismiss the grounds of the assessee.
In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 12.05.2023