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.
