Abdul Sattar, Muzaffarnagar V. ITO, Ward-3(3)(1), Saharanpur

ITA 566/DEL/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Abdul Sattar, the appellant, who contested the addition of Rs. 32,37,400 to his income for the assessment year 2012-13, which was treated as unexplained income by the Income Tax Officer. The addition was based on cash deposits in the assessee's bank account, which the authorities considered unexplained. The assessee's appeal to the CIT(Appeals) was dismissed due to a significant delay in filing and lack of substantial explanation regarding the source of the deposits. The Tribunal's decision was based on the absence of any material from the assessee to counter the findings of the lower authorities.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 108643 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-05-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 22-05-2023
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 31-03-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Tangible material; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 147; 148; 271(1)(c); 144; 234B

Judgement Text

1 ITA No. 566/Del/2022 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 566/DEL/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Abdul Sattar, S/o Mohd. Ilyas, Shop No. 28, Sheikpura Kadeem, Mohalla Darbara, Saharanpur. C/0 Shri Ankit Gupta, Advocate, 2-Anand Vihar, Lane No. 1, Near M.G. Public School, Circular Road, Muzaffarnagar-251001. PAN- DNPPS5886F Vs Income-tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(1), Saharanpur. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by None Department represented by Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR Date of hearing 23.05.2023 Date of pronouncement 23.05.2023 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, JM: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), 2 ITA No. 566/Del/2022 Delhi, dated 06.01.2022, pertaining to the assessment year 2012-13. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1) That the notice issued u/s 148 and reassessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 are illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction 2) That, in view of the facts and circumstances, no satisfaction is recorded by the assessing officer as required u/s 147/148 of the Act prior issuing the notice under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 3) That, no application of mind by the assessing officer while recording the alleged satisfaction, merely reproducing the AIR information on account of CASH deposit in the Bank Account and failed to establish the live nexus between tangible material and income escaped assessment, which is vague, incorrect and baseless, hence the proceedings initiated is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. The NFAC has erred in upholding the validity of the proceedings initiated U/s 147 read with section 148. 4) The addition/ disallowances made by the assessing officer are illegal, unjust, highly excessive and are not based on any material on record by the assessing officer. The total income of the appellant has been wrongly and illegally computed by the assessing officer at Rs.32,37,400.00, which is highly arbitrary and unjustified. 5) That, the NFAC has erred in not condoning the delay of 176 days, in filing the appeal before CIT(A) without appreciating that the assessee is having a reasonable cause of not filing of appeal before the CIT(A), which is highly arbitrary, unjustified and untenable. 6) That the Assessing Officer/NFAC, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case erred on facts and in making the 3 ITA No. 566/Del/2022 audition of Rs.32,37,400.00 on account of CASH deposit in the Bank Account treating as unexplained income U/s 69A, which is unjust, arbitrary, unlawful, highly excessive, based on surmises and conjectures and cannot be justified by any material on record. 7) That, the assessing officer as well as NFAC has erred in ignoring the fact that the assessee is engaged in the business of Authorized Person of the society to manage the affairs of the fair price unit (Ration Depot) to procure wheat, rice, sugar and kerosene oil and distribute the same to the Ration Card Holder under the supervision of District Supply Officer, hence the addition made is highly arbitrary and purely based on surmises and conjectures. 8) That the assessing officer as well as NFAC has failed to appreciate that the assessee ahs made the CASH deposit in the Bank Account, which is fully covered from the CASH received against the material distribution on the Ration Card. 9) The assessing officer and NFAC has failed to appreciate the documentary evidences filed by the assessee and made the addition/ disallowance without any basis and reasons, which is highly presumptive, arbitrary, excessive and unjust. 10) The assessing officer and NFAC has erred in making the several observations, in the impugned order and assessment orders, which are purely based on presumption, surmises and conjectures and against the material available on records. 11) That the explanation given and evidence produced, material placed and available on record have not been property considered and judicially interpreted and the same do not justify the additions/ allowances made. The observations made by the assessing officer on different issues are either not relevant or are purely based on presumptions. 12) That the interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C have been wrongly and illegally charged as the appellant could not have 4 ITA No. 566/Del/2022 foreseen the disallowances/additions made and could not have included the same in current income for payment of Advance tax. The interest charged under various sections is also wrongly worked out 13) That the Assessing Officer and NFAC has erred in issuing the notice U/s 271(1)(c) and initiating the penalty proceedings when the assessee appellant has not concealed the particular of any income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. 14) The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and or modify the grounds of appeal of the said appeal.” 2. No one appeared on behalf of the assessee at the hearing despite issue of notice for hearing sent at the address furnished by the assessee in form no. 36 for sending notices. Under these facts the appeal is taken up for hearing in the absence of the assessee and is being decided after hearing the learned DR and on the basis of material available on record. 3. The only effective ground raised in this appeal relates to the addition of Rs. 32,37,400/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of cash deposited by the assessee in his saving bank account, treating the same as unexplained income u/s 69A of the Income-tax Act (the “Act”). Aggrieved against it the assessee preferred appeal to the learned CIT(Appeals), who dismissed the appeal of the assessee, inter alia, by observing as under: 2.3 I have gone through the submission of the assessee and perused the assessment order. As per the above facts, the appellant has deposited cash of Rs.3237400 in bank account. To the notices issued by the AO to explain 5 ITA No. 566/Del/2022 the cash credit there was no compliances. Thus, there is no explanation to the source of cash deposit available from the assessee. The appeal has been filed by the appellant with delay of 176 days. No condonation petition has been filed, and no delay has been explained. Reason for no compliance has been stated as wrong advice given by the counsel. The assessee has stated that immediately on second opinion the appeal was filed. At para 15 in the Form35 request has been made to condone the delay. No details of specific reason of delay has been explained. Name and address of the last counsel who has been stated for reason for delay has not been provided. Name and address of the present counsel has not been provided. Such a large delay of 176 days cannot be condoned on the basis of mere averment of the assessee without backed by supporting evidences. There has to be specific day- wise reason specifying the date on which demand notice was received to date on which the assessee came to know of wrong decision by earlier counsel the date on which new counsel was engaged etc. The condonation is not granted to the assessee and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Inspite of my decision rejecting condonation I will dispose the ground of appeal on merit also. In the grounds of appeal, the appellant has alleged that AO has made addition in haste and without conducting proper enquiries. Appellant was deprived of opportunity to explain by his counsel who has taken his fees but did not comply to the notices If appellant counsel has not provided service to the appellant, it is the matter between him and his counsel. There is no evidence that appellant has filed any suit against the earlier counsel for breach of trust or breach of service. Regarding the source of cash deposit nothing has been explained. Even at appeal stage the appellant has not filed any explanation of sources of cash deposit. Inspite of notices dated 04/02/2021 and 22/10/2021 from this office not explanation has been filed for cash credit. Thus, the appellant has failed to explain the source of deposit. Accordingly, the addition is sustained and ground is dismissed.” Feeling aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 4. The learned DR supported the orders of the authorities below. 5. I have heard the learned DR and perused the material available on record. Apropos to the grounds of appeal, the assessee has not placed any material to rebut 6 ITA No. 566/Del/2022 the findings of authorities below. In the absence of any contrary material brought on record by the assessee to take a different view, I do not see any reason to disturb the finding of the authorities below. Hence, the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed. 7. Appeal of the assessee stands dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on 23.05.2023. Sd/- (KUL BHARAT) JUDICIAL MEMBER *MP* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI