JAI KUMAR, RAIPUR,RAIPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 184/RPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Jai Kumar, who did not file his income tax return for the assessment year 2011-12. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) issued a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after discovering cash deposits of Rs. 11,71,105 in Jai Kumar's bank account during the financial year 2010-11. Despite multiple notices under Sections 142(1) and 148, Jai Kumar failed to comply or provide any explanation for the source of these deposits. The ITO completed the assessment ex-parte under Section 147 read with Section 144, treating the amount as undisclosed income. The CIT(Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to Jai Kumar's appeal to the Tribunal, which also dismissed his appeal, confirming the addition as unexplained income.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 652588 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRIYANKA PATEL
• Assessee Lawyers: YOGESH SETHIA
• Keywords: Salary income; Competent authority; Tangible material; Presumptive income
• Section: 147; 148; 142(1); 44AD

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण Ûयायपीठ “एक-सदèय” मामला रायपुर मɅ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR Įी पाथ[ सारथी चौधरȣ, ÛयाǓयक सदèय क े सम¢ BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.184/RPR/2025 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Jai Kumar C/o. Jyoti Sales Corporation, Handi Para, Azad Chowk, Dist. Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 PAN: ATOPK6732E .......अपीलाथȸ / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……Ĥ×यथȸ / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Yogesh Sethia, CA Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख / Date of Hearing : 09.06.2025 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख / Date of Pronouncement : 18.06.2025 2 Jai Kumar Vs. ITO-1(1), Raipur ITA No.184/RPR/2025 आदेश / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM The captioned appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi dated 24.02.2025 for the assessment year 2011-12 as per the following grounds of appeal: “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in confirming initiation of re-assessment proceedings under section 147 read with section 148, 149 and 151 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in upholding addition of entire amount of cash deposit of Rs.11,71,110/- as unexplained income. 3. The impugned order is bad in law and on facts. 4. The appellant reserves the right to add, alter, omit all or any of the grounds of appeal with the permission of the Hon'ble appellate authority.” 2. The relevant facts in this case are that the assessee has not filed his return of income u/s.139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) for A.Y.2011-12. Subsequently, the A.O issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act. The reasons for issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Act was that during F.Y.2010-11, the assessee had made cash deposits of Rs.11,71,105/- in his bank account with State Bank of India. In response to the said notice, the assesse has not filed his return of income for A.Y.2011-12. Further the A.O issued notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act a/w. query letter requiring the 3 Jai Kumar Vs. ITO-1(1), Raipur ITA No.184/RPR/2025 assessee to furnish information, evidence and documents. However, there was no compliance by the assessee. Statutory notices were issued u/s. 142(1) of the Act to the assessee but the assessee failed to comply with these notices which had been duly issued and served on him. Therefore, the A.O completed the assessment ex-parte u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act as per the information and material available on record. Since the assessee failed to comply with the notices issued and had not explained the source of cash deposits in the bank account, therefore, the A.O treated the amount of Rs.11,71,105/- as undisclosed income of the assessee. 3. That the assessee being aggrieved preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC wherein certain legal grounds have been raised along with grounds on merits. The first objection that had been raised by the assessee regarding reopening is that it was initiated mechanically and on this issue, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC has held and observed as follows: “6.2 The first objection is that the reopening was initiated mechanically on the basis of information placed on record without conducting any independent enquiry and without independent application of mind. There is no merit in this contention as the AO has clearly noted that cash was found deposited in the bank account but no return of income for the relevant year had been filed. Thus, the AO sought to correlate the information available against the position as per the return of income. Hence it cannot be said that there is no independent application of mind by the AO. It is not in dispute that cash to the extent of Rs.11,71,105/- had been deposited in the bank account which belonged to the appellant. In the face of no return of income having been filed for the year, this information was sufficient for the AO to conclude that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The AO had in his possession. 4 Jai Kumar Vs. ITO-1(1), Raipur ITA No.184/RPR/2025 tangible material, having live nexus to taxable income and thus there is no basis for stating that the reopening is not valid.” 3.1 The assessee vide next legal ground challenged the reopening proceedings on the ground that the jurisdictional notice u/s.148 was not served on the assessee and the same has been adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC observing as follows: “6.3 The appellant challenges the reopening proceedings on the ground that the jurisdictional notice u/s.148 was not served. The appellant states that: It appears that the notice was issued at the care of address of Shri Noor Mohammad. Opp. Jet Box. Azad Chowk, Handipara, Raipur and above fact ascertainable from the address mentioned in the assessment order. It also appears that all the notices were also sent on the said address. Hence, the notices effectively remained unserved and thus could not be complied for. There is absolutely no merit in the above contention. The address % Shri Noor Mohammad, Opp. Jet Box Azad Chowk, Handipara, Raipur is an address provided and used by the appellant himself. In fact, this address is the address provided by the appellant as per PAN database. Further, this very address has been filled in by the appellant while filing the present appeal proceedings. Screenshot of form no. 35 is reproduced below: 5 Jai Kumar Vs. ITO-1(1), Raipur ITA No.184/RPR/2025 6 Jai Kumar Vs. ITO-1(1), Raipur ITA No.184/RPR/2025 The notice has been sent on the address mentioned in the returns for AY 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2016-17. Further, the email id wherein the notice was sent is [e-mail], which is the email id as per returns of AY 2013-14 and Ay 2014-15. Relevant screenshot is reproduced below: Thus the jurisdictional notice u/s 148 has been issued at the valid addresses of the appellant and there is no basis for challenging the re-opening proceedings on this ground.” 3.2 The other contention that has been raised by the assessee is that SOP prescribed by the Board has not been followed by the A.O. In this regard, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC has observed and held as follows: “6.4 The next contention is that the SOP prescribed by the Board has not been followed by the AO. This is a baseless allegation as the impugned order clearly records that notice u/s.148 was issued after obtaining approval of the competent authority. The notice u/s 148 also clearly records approval being granted by Pr. CIT-1, Raipur. 6.5 The appellant has not been able to substantiate any of the challenges to the notice issued u/s. 148. Hence the notice u/s. 148 is upheld as a validly issued notice and ground no. 1 is dismissed.” 3.3. With regard to the merits of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had adjudicated the same at Para 6.6 of its order, wherein it has been 7 Jai Kumar Vs. ITO-1(1), Raipur ITA No.184/RPR/2025 observed that the assessee has not furnished any verifiable evidence that he is earning any income from business. The return filing history reveals that the assessee has not filed any return of income for the relevant assessment year 2011-12. The earliest return of income available online is the return of A.Y.2013-14, wherein the assessee had shown salary income and income from other sources and there is no income from business. The same position holds for A.Y.2014-15. Also, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had extracted the screenshots of the return filed by the assessee. That though the assessee had claimed the benefit of presumptive taxation u/s. 44AD of the Act, the onus is always on the assessee to prove that he was indeed engaged in earning income from business. There is no evidence at all on record that the assessee were engaged in any business activities. The source of cash deposits were never explained by the assessee neither before the A.O nor before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) and therefore, the addition of Rs.11,71,105/- was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC as unexplained income in the hands of the assesse as per Section 69A of the Act. 4. That before me, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee simply reiterated the submissions made before the first appellate authority and has not produced on record any evidence nor any documents to demonstrate the source of cash deposits of Rs.11,71,105/-. That further, even in the legal ground also, except for reiterating the same no evidence has been placed 8 Jai Kumar Vs. ITO-1(1), Raipur ITA No.184/RPR/2025 on record to show some genuineness regarding contentions raised by the assessee. It is clear that the assessee is wasting time of judicial process through dilatory tactics and hunting forum whereas the actual fact remains the assessee has nothing to explain with regard to the source of money that has been found in his possession. Another important thing is that the assessee has taken benefit of presumptive taxation u/s. 44 AD of the Act claiming business activities, however, as has been examined by the sub-ordinate authorities there has been no return filed by the assessee nor any supportive evidence regarding business activities of the assessee. As the source of money is unexplained, therefore, the addition made by the A.O and sustained by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC is upheld. 5. As per the above terms the grounds of appeal of the assessee are dismissed. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on 18th day of June, 2025. Sd/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) ÛयाǓयक सदèय/JUDICIAL MEMBER रायपुर / Raipur; Ǒदनांक / Dated : 18th June, 2025. SB, Sr. PS आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ / The Appellant. 2. Ĥ×यथȸ / The Respondent. 9 Jai Kumar Vs. ITO-1(1), Raipur ITA No.184/RPR/2025 3. The Pr. CIT-1, Raipur (C.G.) 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, “एक-सदèय” बɅच, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Raipur. 5. गाड[ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur "