KUNHABDULLA,KOZHIKODE V. ITO WARD 2(2), KOZHIKODE

ITA 983/COCH/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Kunhabdulla, the appellant, who did not file a regular return of income for the Assessment Year 2012-13. The Income Tax Officer (AO) issued a notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after discovering substantial cash deposits in the appellant's bank accounts. The AO assessed the appellant's income, adding Rs. 30,25,000 as unexplained money. The CIT(A) dismissed the appellant's appeal, finding the explanation regarding the source of the deposits unconvincing and unsupported by necessary documentation. The Tribunal, after hearing the Senior Departmental Representative and in the absence of the appellant, dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the lower authorities' findings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 315985 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Other Referred Cases: Ravinder Kumar v. ITO [2022] 273 Taxman 369
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LEENA LAL
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences
• Section: 148; 143(3)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JM ITA No. 983/Coch/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Kunhabdulla .......... Appellant Theerkandiyil House, Chekkiyad Parakkadavu, Kozhikode 673509 [PAN: BVZPK8798L] vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Kozhikode .......... Respondent Appellant by: ------- None ------- Respondent by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 12.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 14.05.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)], dated 30.06.2022 for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual. No regular return of income was filed by the appellant under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Based on the information that the appellant made cash deposit in the bank account during previous year relevant to AY 2012-13, the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Kozhikode (hereinafter called \"the 2 ITA No. 983/Coch/2022 Kunhabdulla AO\") formed an opinion that income escaped assessment to tax. Accordingly, a notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 28.03.2019. In response to the notice u/s. 148, the appellant filed return of income on 08.05.2019 disclosing total income of Rs. 3,00,260/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the by the AO vide order dated 10.12.2019 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act at a total income of Rs. 33,25,260/-. While doing so, the AO made addition of Rs. 30,25,000/- being the cash deposits made in the bank account as unexplained money of the assessee. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal rejecting the explanation of the assessee that the cash deposits are made out of business of granite stones and country made bricks by holding that the explanation is an afterthought and the appellant had failed to substantiate its claim with supporting documentary evidences in the form of sales and purchase invoices, placing reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ravinder Kumar v. ITO [2022] 273 Taxman 369. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 5. When the appeal was called on nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. Therefore, we proceeded to dispose of the appeal after hearing the learned Sr. DR. 3 ITA No. 983/Coch/2022 Kunhabdulla 6. On a perusal of the assessment order it would be clear that the appellant made cash deposit in his NRO & NRE bank accounts. The total cash deposit made during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration aggregates to Rs.34,00,000/-. The AO had made an analysis of the cash deposits as well as withdrawals. After giving the benefit of the withdrawals for subsequent deposits, the AO had arrived at cash deficiency of Rs, 30,25,000/-. During the course assessment proceedings the appellant only submitted a cash flow statement and not offered any explanation in support of the source for the cash deposits made. It is only during the course of the proceedings before the CIT(A) the appellant had offered an explanation that the cash deposits were made out of the sale proceeds of the business of granite stones and country made bricks and the income was offered u/s. 44 AD of the Act on a turnover of Rs. 34,00,000/- and declared income of 2,40,000/-. However, the said explanation was rejected by the CIT(A) as the appellant had failed to substantiate the contentions that the sale proceeds were made out of the business of granite stones, etc. without supporting evidence in the form of sale and purchase invoices, etc. We are of the considered opinion that since the appellant had failed to discharge its onus of proving the contention that the cash deposits were made out of the sale proceeds of granite stones, etc., the CIT(A) had rightly dismissed the claim placing reliance on the decision in the case of Ravinder Kumar (supra). We do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the assessee. 4 ITA No. 983/Coch/2022 Kunhabdulla 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 14th May, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (SOUNDARARAJAN K.) JUDICIAL MEMBER (INTURI RAMA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cochin, Dated: 14th May, 2025 n.p. Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The Pr. CIT concerned 4. The Sr. DR, ITAT, Cochin 5. Guard File Assistant Registrar ITAT, Cochin "