Hem Kumar Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore)
Bangalore ITAT Upholds Section 69A Addition: No Evidence Furnished to Explain Source of Cash Deposits
The assessee had not originally filed his return of income. Based on information relating to substantial cash withdrawals or deposits in his bank account, reassessment proceedings were initiated. Although the assessee subsequently filed a return in ITR-1, he failed to respond to further notices issued by the AO.
The AO obtained the assessee’s bank statement through the Verification Unit and treated the amounts deposited in the bank account as unexplained money under section 69A. The assessment was completed ex parte after the assessee failed to respond even to a notice sent by speed post.
The assessee’s appeal before the CIT(A) was delayed by 141 days. In Form 35, he incorrectly stated that there was no delay and neither filed a condonation petition nor responded to the CIT(A)’s notices. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as time-barred.
The appeal before the ITAT was itself delayed by 211 days. The Tribunal condoned this delay based on a medical certificate issued by a government hospital. However, neither the assessee nor his representative appeared at the hearing, and no documents were filed to establish the source of the cash deposits.
Considering the continued non-compliance and absence of supporting evidence, the ITAT held that the assessee had failed to explain the source of the deposits and upheld the addition under section 69A. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
List of Cases Discussed / Relied Upon
No judicial authorities are discussed, cited, referred to or relied upon in the supplied substantive material.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT BANGALORE
This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 14/07/2025 in respect of the A.Y. 2018-19.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and not filed his return of income. Based on the information that the assessee had withdrawn cash from his bank account, proceedings u/s. 148 was initiated after passing an order u/s. 148A(d) of the Act. Thereafter, the assessee filed his return of income in ITR1. The assessee had, subsequently, not responded to any of the notices and therefore the AO through the verification unit obtained the bank statement. On that basis, the AO concluded that the assessee earned the income which was deposited into the bank account and treated the same as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. The AO also alleged that in spite of the notice sent by speed post, the assessee had not responded and therefore made the ex-parte order.
3. As against the order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) found that the appeal was filed with a delay of 141 days but no explanation or documents in support of the delay has been filed by the assessee, in spite of the notices were issued and therefore concluded that the assessee had not explained the delay with material evidence and rejected the appeal on the ground of limitation.
4. As against the said order, the present appeal has been filed by the assessee before this Tribunal with a delay of 211 days. The assessee filed an application to condone the delay and also enclosed a Medical Certificate obtained from the Government Hospital, Kolar. None appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing. In the interest of justice, we have considered the reasons stated in the delay condonation affidavit and the Medical Certificate and satisfied that the assessee is having valid reasons for not filing the appeal in time before this Tribunal and therefore we are inclined to condone the delay of 211 days in filing the appeal and proceeded to decide the appeal.
5. At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. No application also filed for adjournment. Therefore, we have decided the appeal after hearing the arguments of the Ld.DR.
6. The Ld.DR submitted that the assessee is not entitled for any indulgence and submitted that the assessee had not filed return of income even though large cash was deposited into his bank account. Further, the Ld.DR submitted that the assessee had not responded to any of the notices issued by the AO. In fact, the AO had issued one notice through speed post and therefore the assessee had knowledge about the assessment proceedings. The Ld.DR further submitted that the assessee, while filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) had mentioned in Form 35, there is no delay and therefore not filed any explanation for the delay, even though there was a delay of 141 days. Further, the assessee had not responded to the notices issued by the Ld.CIT(A) about the delay. In such circumstances, the Ld.CIT(A) had not condoned the delay. The Ld.DR further submitted that even before this Tribunal, the assessee is not appearing which shows that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal and therefore prayed that the appeal may be dismissed.
7. We have heard the arguments of the Ld.DR.
8. As rightly contended by the Ld.DR, the assessee had not co-operated with the Department and also not responded to the notice issued by the Ld.CIT(A). We have also perused Form 35 filed before the Ld.CIT(A) and found that in column 14, the assessee had stated that there was no delay and therefore not enclosed any application to condone the delay. The assessee also not furnished any documents in support of the delay before the Ld.CIT(A).
9. In fact, before us also except filing the appeal in Form 36 and a delay condonation application along with Medical Certificate, the assessee had neither appeared nor filed any documents in support of his case on merits.
10. Considering the entire facts, we are of the view that the assessee is not having any valid records in support of the source for the cash deposits and therefore, the lower authorities had correctly made the addition u/s. 69A of the Act.
11. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 18th August, 2026.
