Mohd Naki, New Delhi V. ITO WARD - 28(5), New Delhi

ITA 9706/DEL/2019

AI Insights

The case involves Mohd. Naki, the Appellant, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-9, New Delhi, concerning the assessment year 2011-12. The Appellant was accused of not filing his Income Tax Return (ITR) despite having deposited a substantial amount of Rs.47,98,000 in his bank account during the financial year. The Assessing Officer, after noting the unexplained cash deposits totaling Rs.76,23,700, treated this amount as income due to non-compliance with notices under sections 147/148 and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Appellant's contention that he did not receive any notice was dismissed by the Commissioner, who noted the Appellant's failure to participate in the proceedings despite receiving the notices.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 116272 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-03-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 15-03-2023
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 22-12-2019
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ISSUING A NOTICE US.
• Section: 148; 142(1); 133(6); 250

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’ NEW DLEHI BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 9706/Del/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Mohd. Naki, H-1/7, Phase-3, JJ Cluster, Madanpur Khadar, New Delhi. PAN: AKNPN3712F VersuS Income-tax Officer, Ward 28(5), New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: None Revenue by: Sh. Arvind Bansal, Ld. Sr. DR Date of hearing : 16/03/2023 Date of order : 29/03/2023 ORDER PER N.K. CHOUDHRY, J.M. This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee/Appellant herein against the order dated 22.10.2019, impugned herein, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-9, New Delhi (in short “Ld. Commissioner”), u/s. 250 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the assessment year 2011- 12. ITA No. 9706/Del/2019 2 2. In spite of sending notices including for the date of hearing on 16.03.2023, to the Assessee at the address mentioned in form No. 36, the Assessee neither appeared nor filed any adjournment application. Even the Registry do not have any alternative address for sending the notices by post. Hence, in the constrained circumstances, we are inclined to decide this appeal as ex-parte. 3. In the instant case, from the AIR information available with the department, it was noted that the Appellant during the financial year under consideration had deposited Rs.47,98,000 in its bank account maintained with Central Bank of India, but did not file its ITR. Consequently, the case of the Appellant was opened u/s. 147/148 of the Act and notice dated 27.03.2018 u/s. 148 of the Act was issued to the Appellant which remained uncomplied. Subsequently, statutory notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire was also issued to the Appellant through e-mail which also remained un-complied. On procuring the bank statement from Central Bank of India u/s. 133(6) of the Act, it was seen by the Assessing Officer that there were total cash deposit of Rs.76,23,700/-. As the Appellant has failed to submit any reply to the query, qua the source of cash deposits, it was held by the Assessing Officer that the same remained ITA No. 9706/Del/2019 3 unexplained. Consequently, the said amount Rs.76,23,700/- was treated as income of the Appellant . 4. The Appellant being aggrieved, challenged the assessment order and the addition before the ld. Commissioner and mainly raised the issue that the Appellant had not received any notice except for ex parte assessment order. Since it had not received any notice, the proceedings should be treated as void and ineffective. Though the ld. Commissioner considered the contention of the Appellant, however, found not tenable. The ld. Commissioner specifically given a finding that the appellant in its submission has contended that the notice has been dispatched on 31.03.2018 at 2 PM and delivered to someone (as shown on the track report of speed post but name of receiving person was not mentioned) on 02.04.2018 and yet no effort was made by the appellant to take part in the assessment proceedings. Hence, the contention of the appellant with regard to not providing enough opportunity during the course of assessment proceedings is dismissed. 5. On merit, the ld. Commissioner also observed that during the course of appellate proceedings, the Appellant has not filed any substantive document or provided any substantial argument or bona fide reason to counter the findings of the Assessing Officer. Mere making the claim and not providing something ITA No. 9706/Del/2019 4 would not do any good to the stand of the appellant. The onus was on the appellant to produce the necessary documents or evidences as called for at the time of assessment proceedings. The appellant’s reliance on various case laws, is not found to be applicable in this case in as much as the circumstances and facts in those cases are different from the facts and circumstances in the present case. 6. We have given thoughtful consideration to the peculiar facts and circumstances and observe from the orders passed by the authorities below, as it appears, that sufficient opportunities have been provided to the Appellant by issuing a notice u/s. 148 and 142(1) of the Act, however, the Appellant preferred not to file any reply. Further before the ld. Commissioner as well the Appellant neither filed any substantive documents nor provided any substantial arguments to counter the findings of the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the ld. Commissioner correctly held that mere making a claim and not providing something would not do any good to the stand of the appellant. The onus was on the appellant to produce the necessary documents or evidences as called for at the time of assessment proceedings. Even otherwise, we do not find any reason and/or material to contradict the findings of the ld. Commissioner. Hence, we are inclined not to interfere with the impugned order. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed. ITA No. 9706/Del/2019 5 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the Appellant stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 29/03/2023. Sd/- Sd/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) (N.K. CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *aks/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT Assistant Registrar ITAT New Delhi Draft dictated 21.03.2023 Draft placed before author 22.03.2023 Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS Order si gned and pronounced on Date of uploading on the website File sent to the Bench Clerk Date on which file goes to the AR Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk. Date of dispatch of Order.