"ITA No.2216/Del/2024 Page | 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “D” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2216/Del/2024 [Assessment Year : 2013-14] Arvind Gulati 802, Tower J, Premises 345 10 383 Business Bay, Burj Khalifa, P.O.Box 93209, Dubai, 123456 PAN-BCXPG5797G vs ACIT, International Taxation, Circle-1(3)(1), New Delhi. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by None Respondent by Ms. Prajna Paramita, CIT DR Date of Hearing 28.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement 02.05.2025 ORDER PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM : The present appeal has been filed by the assessee seeking to assail the order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] dated 20.03.2024 of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), Delhi-42 [“Ld. CIT”] arising from the assessment order dated 25.05.2022 passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act pertaining to Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. At the time of hearing, no one attended the proceedings on behalf of the assessee. It is seen from the record that no one has been attending the proceedings on behalf of the assessee despite various opportunities were provided to the assessee. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee is taken up for hearing in the absence of the assessee and is being decided on the basis of material available on record. ITA No.2216/Del/2024 Page | 2 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a non-resident and during the year under appeal, has deposited cash of INR 3,65,000/- in the bank account. Therefore, the case of the assessee was re-opened by way of issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2021. No return of income was filed in response to notice thereafter, the assessment was completed under section 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act dated 22.05.2022 wherein addition of INR 3,65,000/- was made by invoking the provision of section 68 of the Act. 4. Against such order, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) who vide impugned order dated 20.03.2024, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved against the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee came up before this Tribunal by raising following grounds of appeal:- “The cash was not deposited in lump sum but was done in a split manner in two tranches in May & October 2012. The reason for this being the possible requirement of this amount for my own personal requirement when I am in India. The Ld AO in his order has mentioned that \"The frequency and dates of deposit, without any substantiating evidence or documentary proof submitted by the assessee, make his claims untenable. The deposits remain unexplained.\" The Id AO and subsequently the CIT (A) have erred in assuming that the cash deposited in the NRO account be treated as unexplained credit because of the frequency of deposits in the account. The entire cash deposited in the bank can never be my income. There is always a possibility of some opening balance. My income for that year is below the taxable limit. This was the reason for non-filing of return. The Ld. AO has indulged in speculation, surmises and conjectures in treating the cash deposit of Rs. ITA No.2216/Del/2024 Page | 3 365,000/- completely as my income. The revenue should have acted fairly in the matter of assessment as much as it is interested in collecting the tax. In the absence of any prejudice to the revenue and the basis of the tax under the Act being to levy tax, as far as possible, on the real income, the approach should be liberal in applying the provisions of the act. I therefore pray that the amount added as income from other sources by the Ld AO namely Rs 365,000/- be deleted & the penalty proposed to be levied be deleted. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, vary, supplement, alter and or withdraw any or all of the above grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.” 6. At the outset, it is seen that before the lower authorities, the assessee has claimed that his grandmother was ill and for her day-to-day expenses, cash was deposited on various occasions in the bank account. However, except this, no explanation was given by the assessee with respect to the source of cash deposited in the bank account. 7. On the other hand, Ld. CIT DR for the Revenue opposed these submissions and supported the orders of the authorities below. 8. We have heard the contention of Ld.CIT DR for the Revenue. Before us also, no evidence was filed by the assessee to substantiate the source of cash deposits in bank account. In view of these facts, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the lower authorities, the same is hereby upheld. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court on 02.05.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) JUDICIAL MEMBER (MANISH AGARWAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2216/Del/2024 Page | 4 *Amit Kumar, Sr.P.S* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI "