Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI
ORDER
PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM :
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 10.02.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - Karnal relating to Assessment Year 2011-12.
Brief facts of the case as culled out from the material on record are as under :-
Assessee is an individual. It was noted by AO that assessee did not file his return of income for A.Y. 2011-12 accordingly the Kamlesh in Capital of Legal Heirs of Late Sh Sultan Singh vs. ITO 2 notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 05.07.2013 and served on the assessee. In response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act, assessee filed the return of income on 23.01.2015 declaring NIL income. AO has noted that information was received from the office of the Asstt. Director of Income-tax (Inv.), Panipat that assessee had deposited cash aggregating to Rs.74,40,000/- during the year under consideration in his bank account jointly maintained with his wife Smt. Kamlesh Devi. It was also noted by the AO that assessee had claimed that the source of cash deposit was out of the sale proceeds of agricultural land that was sold by him for Rs. 74,40,000/-. AO has noted that as per copy of registered sale deed furnished by the assessee, agricultural land was sold for a consideration of Rs.22,01,000/-. AO noted that assessee could explain cash deposit only to the extent of Rs.22,01,000/- and had failed to explaining the cash deposit of balance Rs.52,39,000/-. After considering the aforesaid information, AO considered the balance amount of Rs.52,39,000/- [74,00,000 – 22,01,000] as unexplained cash credit and made its addition u/s 68 of the Act as assessee’s income from undisclosed sources. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide order dated 10.02.2017. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal and has raised the following grounds of appeal : 1. “That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. A.O. framing the impugned assessment Kamlesh in Capital of Legal Heirs of Late Sh Sultan Singh vs. ITO 3 order without complying with mandatory conditions as envisaged u/s 147 to 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of the Id A.O. in making aggregate addition of Rs. 52,39,000/-on account unexplained cash deposit u/s 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of 5239000.00 made by the Ld. A.O. on the ground that no information with regard to these unexplained cash deposit have been furnished ,whereas no opportunity was ever granted by the Ld. A.O. to confront the buyer of the property.
That the appellant craves to add or amend any ground of appeal
at the time of hearing of appeal.”
4. The case file reveals that the defect memo was issued to the assessee pointing out the CIT(A)’s order and ground of appeal filed before CIT(A) were not legible however the assessee has not filed the legible copies of the aforesaid documents till date. The case file further reveals that the matter was listed on various dates in the past but there was no appearance from the side of assessee nor any adjournment application was filed. When the matter was called for hearing none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment application was filed despite the fact that the notice of hearing was issued to the assessee. Preferring an appeal does not mean merely formally filing an appeal but also taking all necessary steps to effectively pursue the appeal. The fact that assessee has not appeared before the Tribunal despite various opportunities granted to the assessee
Kamlesh in Capital of Legal Heirs of Late Sh Sultan Singh vs. ITO 4 shows that assessee is not serious in pursuing the appeal filed by him. 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. In such circumstances, we have no other option but to dispose of the appeal after considering the material available on record and after hearing the Learned DR.
Before us, Learned DR supported the order of lower authorities.
We have heard the Learned DR and perused the material on record. The issue in the present ground is with respect to the addition of Rs.52,39,000/- made u/s 68 of the Act. While making addition, we find that AO has noted that it was the contention of the assessee that the deposits of Rs.74,40,000/- in cash in his bank account was out of the sale proceeds of the agricultural land. AO has noted that the copy of the registered sale deed that was furnished by the assessee revealed that the agricultural land was sold for only Rs.22,01,000/-. He accordingly considered the balance cash deposits of Rs.52,39,000/- as unexplained and accordingly addition was made. Before us, assessee had not placed any material on record to point out any fallacy in the findings of lower authorities. In such a situation, we find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) and thus the ground of assessee is dismissed.
Kamlesh in Capital of Legal Heirs of Late Sh Sultan Singh vs. ITO 5 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 23.03.2023