Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Sanjaykumar Gangaram Patel Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad)
Appeal Number : ITA No. 633/Ahd/2016
Date of Judgement/Order : 13/05/2022
Related Assessment Year : 2006-07
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Sanjaykumar Gangaram Patel Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad)

Return not filed, however, cash deposit was found in AIR. Accordingly, AO issued notice u/s 148. Addition on cash deposited in bank account, opened with the assessee’s wife, is sustainable.

Facts- The assessee is an individual. For AY 2006-2007, assessee has not filed a ROI. Annual Information Return details available with the Income-tax Department revealed that the assessee has made cash deposits of Rs.13,25,490/- and Rs.58,61,400/- in bank account. As the assessee has not filed ROI, the assessment was reopened and notice u/s 148 was issued against the appellant. The assessee has not responded to notices, and not even filed ROI pursuant to 148 notice, the AO added a sum of Rs.71,86,890/- on account of unexplained cash deposits and completed assessment by passing an ex parte assessment order. The CIT(A) confirmed the assessment. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed the present appeal.

Conclusion- It is undisputed fact that the assessee has not filed return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. However, based on the AIR, the AO has found cash deposits of Rs.13,25,490/- in the bank account by the assessee, and non-filing of return by the assessee made the AO to invoke section 147 of the Act by issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act. As rightly stated by the ld.DR, we do not find any infirmity in the reason recorded by the AO in the issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act.

The next aspect is about service of 148 notice. Copy of the notice produced clearly showed that this notice has been received by the assessee’s wife by subscribing her signature as well as cell-phone number. Further, 148-notice was issued on the same address as shown in the Form no.35 and 36 filed by the assessee. Therefore, the assesee’s claim that notice remained unserved on him is without any basis, and the same is rejected and the additional ground raised by the assessee, in this regard, are hereby dismissed.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031