Shahrukhkhan Sharfarazkhan Pathan, Ahmedabad V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(5), Ahmedabad

ITA 436/AHD/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Shahrukhkhan Sharfarazkhan Pathan, the appellant, who contested the reassessment proceedings and the subsequent addition of income amounting to Rs.10,24,850 under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to unexplained cash deposits in his bank account during the Assessment Year 2011-12. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) initiated reassessment after discovering substantial cash deposits and commodity transactions linked to the appellant. Despite multiple opportunities to present his case, the appellant failed to provide satisfactory explanations or evidence, leading the ITO to complete the assessment ex parte under Section 144 of the Act. The CIT(A) upheld this decision, which was later confirmed by the Tribunal due to the appellant's continued non-compliance and lack of evidence.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 129399 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-02-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 13-02-2023
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 15-11-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Transactions in derivatives
• Section: 69; 148; 144; 142(1); 133(6)

Judgement Text

ITA No.436/Ahd/2022 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Page 1 of 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.436/Ahd/2022 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shahrukhkhan Sharfarazkhan Pathan, vs. Income Tax Officer, 10-11, Amir Park, Ward – 3(3)(5), Ahmedabad. Opp. Samir Bihar Society, Sarkhej Road, Juhapura, Ahmedabad. [PAN – BDLPP 5774 M] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Y.R. Raval, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 14.02.2023 Date of pronouncement : 24.02.2023 O R D E R This appeal is filed by the Assessee against order dated 04.10.2022 passed by the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. That the learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) has erred in law and facts by not quashing the reassessment proceeding and therefore the learned AO should be directed to delete the addition made therein, by quashing the assessment order passed by the learned AO. 2. That the learned National Faceless Appeal Centre has erred in law and facts by confirming the addition of income of Rs.10,24,850/- under Section 69 of the Act on the ground that the cash deposited into bank account and therefore the learned AO should be directed to delete the said addition while computing the total income.” 3. The assessee is an individual, did not file return of income for A.Y. 2011-12. As per the information available with the Assessing Officer that the assessee made cash deposits of Rs.10,24,850/- with ICICI Bank and also made commodity transactions of Rs.38,23,87,995/- during the F.Y. 2010-11. Notice under Section 148 of the Income ITA No.436/Ahd/2022 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Page 2 of 3 Tax Act, 1961 was issued to the assessee on 30.03.2008 which was duly served upon the assessee by Speed Post requiring the assessee to file return of income within 30 days from the receipt of notice. In response to notice under Section 148 issued, the assessee did not file return of income. Subsequently, the assessee was given various opportunities by issuing notices under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 14.08.2018, 18.09.2018, 10.10.2018, 16.11.2018, 23.11.2018 and 05.12.2018. The assessee did not respond to the said notices. Finally, in view of principles of natural justice show cause notice dated 24.12.2018 was issued thereby fixing compliance on 28.12.2018 which was duly served upon the assessee. But again the assessee did not comply with the same. The Assessing Officer decided to complete the proceedings under Section 144 of the Act on the basis of material available on record. Meanwhile, the Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 133(6) of the Act to ICICI Bank, calling for the bank statement of the account. The same was obtained from the Bank and the Assessing Officer completed the assessment proceedings under Section 144 of the Act on 31.12.2018, assessing the income at Rs.10,54,850/- making addition of Rs.10,54,850/- under Section 69 of the Act on account of unexplained investment. 4. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite giving several notices. The last notice was issued on 19.01.2023 which was received by the assessee and the acknowledgement card duly signed by the assessee is there on record. Therefore, we are proceeding on the basis of the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A). 6. The Ld. DR relied upon the Assessment Order and the order of the CIT(A). 7. Heard Ld. DR and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee did not attend or file any evidence before the Assessing Officer. Before the CIT(A) the assessee was given several opportunity vide notice dated 31.12.2020, 21.04.2021 and 03.11.2021 to provide proof of necessary evidences in support of his contentions. However, the assessee did not submit any evidence to substantiate its claim except ITA No.436/Ahd/2022 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Page 3 of 3 requesting for adjournments only. The assessee in its statement of facts filed before the CIT(A) reproduced in paragraph no.3.1 stated that the assessee was hospitalised from April 2011 but the assessment order is that of 30.12.2018 and there was no documentary evidence or oral submissions made by the assessee in support of the same. From the perusal of the grounds of appeal quoted in order of the CIT(A), it appears that the assessee has taken ground no.1 as the assessee withdrawn cash of Rs.1,50,000/- and deposited the same in the bank account and remaining Rs.8,75,000/- was borrowed from friends but to substantiate this claim the assessee had not submitted any documentary evidence before the Assessing Officer as well as before the CIT(A) despite giving several opportunities. Before the Tribunal also, despite receiving the notice for hearing, the assessee has not taken any precaution for filing any adjournment application or attending the proceedings. Therefore, it is seen that the assessee is negligent about his own case and hence I am dismissing the appeal of the assessee. 8. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 24 th day of February, 2023. Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) Judicial Member Ahmedabad, the 24 th day of February, 2023 PBN/* Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPY Assistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ahmedabad benches, Ahmedabad