RAMBIR SINGH,GURUGRAM V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), INCOME TAX

ITA 1063/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Rambir Singh, the appellant, who faced an addition of Rs. 69,28,147 to his income for the assessment year 2017-18, treated as unexplained cash deposits in his bank account. The Assessing Officer (AO) made this addition under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to the absence of any explanation from the assessee regarding the source of these deposits. The First Appellate Authority (CIT(A)) upheld the AO's decision. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions of the departmental representative and the lack of any response or explanation from the assessee at various stages, upheld the CIT(A)'s order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 298828 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HARPREET KAUR HANSRA
• Section: 144; 142(1); 69A; 139

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण िदʟी पीठ “एफ”, िदʟी ŵी िवकास अव̾थी, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं डॉ मीठा लाल मीना, लेखाकार सद˟ क े समƗ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”, DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आअसं.1063/िदʟी/2024 (िन.व. 2017-18) ITA No .1063/DEL/2024 (A.Y.2017-18) Rambir Singh, H.No. 765, Bhorakalan, Bilaspur, Gurgaon, Haryana 122413 PAN: CJEPS-3193-K ...... अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant बनाम Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi ..... ᮧितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथŎ Ȫारा/ Appellant by : None ŮितवादीȪारा/Respondent by : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, SR.DR सुनवाई कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of hearing : 06/01/2025 घोषणा कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of pronouncement : 06/01/2025 आदेश/ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the CIT(A)') dated 02.11.2023, for assessment year 2017-18. 2. Notice of hearing of appeal was issued to the assessee through RPAD as well as through email-id on the address as provided in Form No. 36 for hearing fixed on 25.07.2024, 15.10.2024 and 06.01.2025. The notice sent through RPAD on 14.05.2024 for hearing fixed on 25.07.2024 was received back un-served from 2 ITA NO.1063/DEL/2020 (A.Y.2017-18) postal authorities. However, subsequent notices issued on 25.07.2024 for hearing fixed on 15.10.2024 and the notice issued on 15.10.2024 for hearing on 06.01.2025 were not received back, hence, deemed to be served. The notices sent to the assessee through email-id were duly served to the assessee. Despite repeated service of notice, the assessee failed to respond. Its seems that the assessee is not interested in pursuing appeal, hence, appeal is taken up for hearing with the assistance of ld. DR and material available on record. 3. Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra representing the department submits that the assessee has been non cooperative during assessment proceedings and has failed to respond to repeated notices issued by the Assessing Officer (AO). Even during First Appellate proceedings, the assessee has failed to respond to the notices issued by CIT(A) on merits. She submitted that during the period relevant to assessment year under appeal, the assessee had cash deposits of Rs.69,28,147/- in his bank account. No explanation whatsoever regarding source of cash deposits was given by the assessee, hence, the AO made addition of Rs.69,28,147/- u/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), treating the aforesaid amount has unexplained money. The decision of the AO was upheld by the CIT(A). 4. We have heard the submissions made by ld. DR and have examined the orders of authorities below. The assessee is engaged in trading of seeds and fertilizers. A perusal of assessment order reveals that no return of income was filed by the assessee for AY 2017-18 either u/s. 139 of the Act or in response to notice issued u/s. 142(1) of the Act. As per the information available with the Assessing Officer the assessee had deposited Rs.69,28,147/- in cash (including 3 ITA NO.1063/DEL/2020 (A.Y.2017-18) Rs.8,48,000/- during demonetization period) during the period relevant to assessment year under appeal. The assessee failed to respond to notices issued by the AO, hence, the AO was constrained to pass assessment order u/s. 144 of the Act. In absence of any assistance from the assessee, the AO treating entire cash deposits in the bank account has unexplained money made addition u/s. 69A of the Act. 5. During, First Appellate proceedings again the assessee failed to respond to any of the notices issued by the CIT(A), hence, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by AO in assessment order. 6. Before the Tribunal as well the assessee has failed to respond to the notices. The conduct of the assessee shows that he has no respect for the statutory notices issued under the law. The assessee is recalcitrant. No submissions were made by the assessee to controvert findings of the authorities below, in the absence of any controverting material, we see no reason to interfere with the findings of First Appellate Authority. 7. In the result, impugned order is upheld and appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on Monday the 06th day of January, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (DR. MITHA LAL MEENA) (VIKAS AWASTHY) लेखाकार सद᭭य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ᭠याियक सद᭭य/JUDICIAL MEMBER िदʟी / Delhi, ᳰदनांक/Dated 06/01/2025 4 ITA NO.1063/DEL/2020 (A.Y.2017-18) NV/- ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषतCopy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ/The Appellant , 2. ᮧितवादी/ The Respondent. 3. The PCIT 4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., िदʟी /DR, ITAT, िदʟी 5. गाडᭅ फाइल/Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, DELHI "