TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 1198X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A.O during the assessment proceedings or placed on his record any written submission or 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), then, in the absence of any evidence whatsoever, whether documentary or otherwise, which would reveal that there was no justification for treating the cash deposits in the assessee s bank account as its unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act, we are of a firm conviction that no infirmity emerges from the order of the CIT(Appeals) who had rightly approved the order passed by the A.O u/s 144. Although Section 253 of the Act, inter alia, vests with an assessee a statutory right to assail before the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), but a careful perusal of the aforesaid statutory provision reveals that the same can be triggered only where the assessee appellant is, inter alia, aggrieved with any order of assessment . 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 fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h 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 craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete all or any of the grounds of Appeal at the time of hearing of the appeal. 2. As per the data available on the system, it was observed by the A.O that though the assessee society, during the demonetization ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned 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 of unexplained money u/s 69A made by the AO to the appellant's income should not be sustained. 7. In view of the above, the undersigned is left with no option but to decide the case on the basis of material on record. Bare perusal of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 query letters that were issued to it, thus, was constrained to treat the cash deposits of Rs. 2,47,65,369/- (supra) as the assessee s unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act, and frame the best judgment assessment vide his order u/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pursued the appeal despite being granted several opportunities as elaborated supra. The appellant has further 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 wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against such order: (a) . an order passed by a Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) [before 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of CIT Vs. Prem Kumar Arjun Dass Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bom): (i). It is a matter of fact borne from the record that the assessee society, had neither filed any return of income for the year under consideration A.Y 2017-18, i.e., either u/s 139 or in compliance to notice u/s 148; nor appeared before the A.O during the assessment proceedings or placed on his record any written submission or 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able on facts as were there before the Hon ble High Court in the case of Prem Kumar Arjun Dass Luthra (supra). (C). The CIT(Appeals) had grossly erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,47,65,369/- made by the A.O by treating the cash deposits as the assessee s unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. (i). The aforesaid claim of the assessee, i.e. the CIT(Appeals), had erred in confirming the addition 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 soci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
