SHRI MANZOOR AHMED BHAT,SRINAGAR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2), JAMMU

ITA 599/ASR/2018

AI Insights

The case involves Sh. Manzoor Ahmed Bhat, the proprietor of M/s National Tyre House, who appealed against the order of the CIT(A)-2, Jalandhar, which confirmed the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO had added Rs. 20,41,820 to the assessee's income, which was allegedly deposited in his bank account in Delhi, and the source of this deposit was not satisfactorily explained. The Tribunal noted that despite multiple opportunities, the assessee failed to provide documentary evidence to substantiate his claim that the deposit was from the sale of his wife's jewelry. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the CIT(A) and the AO that the assessee did not adequately explain the source of the cash deposit.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 706811 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 7 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 04-12-2018
• Other Referred Cases: Amrik Singh
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Principle of natural justice; Assessment record
• Section: 143(3); 68; 133(6)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 599/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Sh. Manzoor Ahmed Bhat, Prop. M/s National Tyre House, Srinagar [PAN: AMQPB 8812M] (Appellant) Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(2), Srinagar (Respondent) Appellant by Respondent by : : None Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement : : 27.05.2025 07.07.2025 ORDER Per Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order passed by ld. CIT(A)-2, Jalandhar (Camp Officer at Srinagar), which has arisen from the order of the AO, Ward 3(2), Srinagar, dated 20th December, 2011, passed u/s 143(3) of the Act,1961. 2 I.T.A. No. 599/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 2. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in Form No. 36 are as follows: “1. That the order under appeal is against the law and facts of the case. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) has not been justified in confirming the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer on the basis of AIR information that the appellant has deposited the amount of Rs. 2041820.00 in view of Judgment of this Hon’ble Tribunal in the case of Amrik Singh. 3. That in addition and without prejudice to the above ground Ld. CIT(A) has also not been justified in holding that the cash has been deposited by the appellant in bank for purchase of property at Delhi. 4. That the appellant could not appear before the Ld Assessing Officer during the appellate proceedings only due to circumstances beyond the control of the appellant and therefore the order passed by the Ld CIT(A) is against the principle of natural justice. 5. That the confirming of demand of interest is illegal as legally no demand on account of tax could be created against the appellant 6. Any Other ground which may be urged and allowed at the time of hearing.” 3. The case was called on the date fixed for hearing on 27th May, 2025, but there was no representation on repeated calls and no adjournment application has been filed before the Bench. 4. It is seen from order sheet entries, that this appeal has been fixed up earlier on numerous occasions and as per date wise noting it is seen that on earlier fifteen occasions the Ld A/R of the assessee, has filed application for adjournments citing 3 I.T.A. No. 599/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 various grounds sometimes pointing out medical issues (cough and cold), sometimes praying for time on the ground of not being legally prepared to argue the case (lack of papers) and citing various other reasons on different dates, and each time adjournments has been granted to the assessee, which proves that notice has been properly served and the assessee and his Ld Advocate , both are aware of the ongoing hearing process. (The appeal memo in form 36 has been counter signed by one Mr. G. Arora Advocate as authorized representative) 5. This is the sixteenth time the case is refixed for hearing (on the 27th May, 2025), and there is no representation on repeated calls and there is no application for adjournment either. We are of the opinion that no purpose will be served if this case is adjourned any further and we are also of the view that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the matter and the Ld Advocate on record is also not interested to argue the case on merits, or for that matter has not even filed any written submissions in support of his legal contentions in the grounds contained in the appeal memo. 6. The Ld. DR is present in the court and we proceed to hear him, consult the materials on record and dispose of the appeal on merits. 7. The brief facts emerging from record is that the return filed by the assessee declaring an income of Rs. 1. 85 lakhs has been selected under CASS and statutory notice u/s 143(2) has been issued, followed by notice u/s 142(1), and one Sh. M 4 I.T.A. No. 599/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Yaqub Wani, A/R of the assessee represented the matter, praying for adjournment (which proves that the assessee has received the notice and is aware of the ongoing proceedings) and subsequently the matter was represented by one Mr Subhas C Datta Advocate (as per information on assessment record). 8. The main issue pertains to a particular information gathered by the AO, from the bankers u/s 133(6) of the Act ,that cash deposit of Rs. 20,41,820/-, has been made by the assessee, in Jammu and Kashmir bank A/c , in its Chandni Chowk, Delhi Branch , during the FY under appeal, and on the failure on the part of the assessee and his Ld. AR, to explain the source thereof in spite of repeated opportunities, the said amount of Rs. 20.41 lakhs has been added back u/s 68 of the Act to the returned income. 9. The matter was carried in appeal before the first appellate authority and written submissions were filed by assessee along with additional evidences containing copies of bank account statement of J & K Bank, Chandni Chowk Branch, Delhi (A/c 4402) and also of Srinagar Branch (A/c 24A), along with copies of agreement of sale of property at Malvia Nagar, Delhi, which were admitted by the first appellate authority under Rule 46A, consequently calling for remand report. 10. The copy of remand report was forwarded to the assessee for rebuttal and the response of the assessee was taken on record, where the assessee has claimed to have 5 I.T.A. No. 599/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 made the cash deposit in bank, out of sale of jewellery belonging to his wife , but could not produce any documentary evidence in support of such contention, in spite of repeated opportunities, resulting in dismissal of the appeal. 11. Now the assessee is before the tribunal on the grounds contained in the memo of appeal in form 36, and one of the main contention as arising from the grounds are that no proper opportunity has been provided by the assessing officer and by the Ld first appellate authority and as such the assessee could not appear due to circumstances beyond his control. 12. The Ld. DR relied on the order of the Ld CIT ( A ) and also referred to the assessment order to argue that it is an admitted fact as evident from the J & K Bank statement and also from the written submission that the assessee has deposit the cash in his Delhi bank a/c and has utilized the said amount for property purchase in Delhi (as evident from appellate order para 4.3), but it is not the utilization part , but the source of the deposit is under question and the same is required to be explained and proved, and the assessee has not filed any documentary evidence or details in support of the sale of jewellery of his wife , as claimed , and in absence of any proper explanation whatsoever, the addition is to be sustained and he prayed for upholding the order of the first appellate authority. 6 I.T.A. No. 599/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 13. We have heard the Ld DR and consulted the materials available on record and the factual contents of the assessment order and the observation of the Ld. CIT (A), and we are of the opinion that it is admitted fact that cash has been deposited in bank by the assessee, in his own bank account and as per narration in the CIT (A) order (para 4.3 ) the said amount has been utilized for purchase of house property by the assessee himself , which points to the fact that the ultimate beneficiary of the said amount is also the assessee himself . 14. The nature and source of the cash deposit has not been explained by the assessee with supporting documentary evidence at any stage whatsoever, and in this case there has not been any dearth of opportunity provided to the assessee, at all stages , and for all practical purpose, if the assessee (or his Advocate ) really had the documentary evidence of sale of jewellery in their custody, the same could have been easily presented before the tribunal, at any time, during the last fifteen occasions when adjournments has been sought and allowed. 15. As such we are of the opinion that the assessee has not been able to explain the nature and source of the cash deposited in the bank account in J&K bank (Delhi branch) as discussed in above paragraphs, and under the circumstances we have no hesitation in upholding the order of the Ld CIT ( A ) on this issue . 7 I.T.A. No. 599/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 16. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed being devoid of merits. Order pronounced in accordance with Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 as on 07.07.2025 Sd/- Sd/- (Brajesh Kumar Singh) (Udayan Dasgupta) Accountant Member Judicial Member *GP/Sr.PS* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The CIT concerned (4) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T True Copy By Order "