9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 1198X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f natural justice and not in accordance with the provisions of law. Further, the Ld.CIT(A) has grievously erred in summarily dismissing the appeal by not rendering any decision on merits which is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Prem Kumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Born.). It is prayed that the Appellate Order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") may please be cancelled/set-aside on this ground alone. GROUND No. II 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming an addition of Rs. 2,47,65,369/- made by the Ld.AO on account of cash deposits in the Bank Account of the appellant thereby invoking the provisions of section 69A r.w.s.115BBE of the Act which is highly unjustified, unwarranted, unsustainable, not proper on facts, based on presumptions & surmises, contrary to the principles of natural justice and not in accordance with the provisions of law. Hence, it is earnestly prayed that the addition of Rs. 2,47,65,369/- confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) may please be deleted. GROUND No. III 3. That the Appellant cr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refore, the A.O after treating the same as its unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act made an addition in its hands of Rs. 2,47,65,369/-. Based on his observations above, the A.O. vide his order passed u/s. 144 of the Act dated 11.12.2019 determined the income of the assessee at Rs. 2,47,65,369/-. 5. Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals) but without success. As the assessee, despite having been afforded sufficient opportunity by the CIT(Appeals), failed to put up an appearance in the course of the proceedings before him, the latter was thus constrained to dismiss the appeal by observing as follows: "6. The facts of the case as noted above are that the appellant has not pursued the appeal despite being granted several opportunities as elaborated supra. No details, documents or submissions have been provided to come to any conclusion other than those arrived at by the assessing officer in the order. The notices have been duly served upon the appellant via email. Regrettably no response whatsoever was forthcoming on the appointed date. Thus, nothing has been placed on record to substantiate as to why the addition of Rs. 2,47,65,369/- on account o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peals) during appellate proceedings, both the lower authorities had rightly made/sustained the addition. 9. We have heard the ld. Authorized representatives of both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record and considered the judicial pronouncement that have been pressed into service by the Ld. AR to drive home his contentions. 10. On a perusal of the assessment order, it transpires that though the A.O. had provided sufficient opportunities to the assessee to represent its case, it was the assessee which, for reasons best known to it, despite being well informed about the ongoing assessment proceedings, had not only failed to file its return of income but had also evaded its participation in the said proceedings. Also, the assessee had failed to file any reply to the query letters that were served on it during the assessment proceedings. Accordingly, the A.O., in the absence of any return of income and also any explanation forthcoming about the source of the cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee society, which had chosen to lie low and neither participate in the assessment proceedings nor furnish any reply to the que ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rther jeopardized its case by not responding despite several opportunities that were provided. The appellant has failed to substantiate the sources of credit in his bank account. In the absence of any evidence whatsoever, whether documentary or otherwise, I am constrained to agree with the approach adopted by the AO in making the addition of Rs. 2,47,65,369/- on account of unexplained money u/s 69A. The AO has passed a reasoned and speaking order considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and no interference with the order of the AO is called for. The grounds of appeal are therefore dismissed. 7. Thus, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed u/s 144 of the Income-tax Act,1961 dated 11.12.2019 by the AO is upheld." (emphasis supplied by us) 13. The CIT(Appeals), taking notice of the fact that the assessee appellant had adopted an evasive approach and, despite being well informed, had not only chosen not to participate in the proceedings before him but also, despite sufficient opportunities, had not placed on record any evidence whatsoever, whether documentary or otherwise, to substantiate its claim that the A.O had erred in treating the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore the 1st day of October, 1998] [or , as the case may be, a Commissioner (Appeals)] under [section 154], section 250, [section 270A,] [section 271, section 271A[section 271J] or section 272A]' or (b) To (f).) ........................................................................." (emphasis supplied by us) Thus, considering the scope of Sec. 253 of the Act, it transpires that the same lays down as a pre-condition a grievance of the assessee appellant arising from the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 14. Reference of the "grounds of appeal" based on which the assessee appellant has assailed the order of the CIT(Appeals) before us reveals three reasons, viz. (i). the CIT(Appeals) has erred in disposing off the appeal without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee; (ii). the CIT(Appeals) had grievously erred in summarily dismissing the appeal by not rendering any decision on the merits of the case, which is contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Prem Kumar Arjun Dass Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bom); and (iii). the CIT(Appeals) had grossly erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,47,65, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r filed replies to the queries that were raised vide notice(s) issued u/s.142(1) of the Act; nor despite sufficient opportunities participated in the proceedings before the CIT(Appeals). Considering the aforesaid factual position, we are unable to fathom that in the absence of any evidence whatsoever, whether documentary or otherwise, which would reveal that there was no justification for treating the cash deposits of Rs. 2,47,65,369/- (supra) in the assessee's bank account as its unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act, what decision other than approving the well-reasoned view of the A.O that the said amount was the assessee's unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act could have been taken by the CIT(Appeals). Once again, we may observe that as the assessee society had, viz. (i). failed to file its return of income, i.e. both u/s 139 or u/s 148 of the Act; (ii). failed to appear before the A.O. during the assessment proceedings; (iii). failed to file before the A.O. any written submission; (iv). failed to file its replies to the queries that the A.O. raised vide notice(s) issued u/s.142(1) of the Act; (v). failed to participate in the course of the proceedings before the CIT(Appeals) desp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs. 2,47, 65,369/- made by the A.O u/s 69A of the Act is misconceived. As observed by us hereinabove, in the absence of any evidence whatsoever, whether documentary or otherwise, which would reveal that there was no justification for treating the cash deposits of Rs. 2,47,65,369/- (supra) in the assessee's bank account as its unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act, the CIT(Appeals) had approved the well-reasoned addition made by the A.O. The CIT(Appeals) observing that no material/evidence was placed on record by the assessee appellant to substantiate the sources of the credit in its bank account, thus, was constrained to sustain the addition made by the A.O u/s 69A of the Act. Thus, in terms of our observations above, we find no merit in the grounds on which the assessee society has assailed the order of the CIT(Appeals) before us. 15. Apropos, the claim of the Ld. A.R. that the matter in all fairness be restored to the file of the A.O. for fresh adjudication, the same does not favor us. As observed by us herein above, the grounds based on which the order of the CIT(Appeals) has been assailed before us are devoid and bereft of any merit; therefore, the appeal is liable to be di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
