Dinesh Singh Chouhan Vs ITO (Chhattisgarh High Court)
Chhattisgarh High Court held that addition u/s. 68 r.w.s. 69A of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained income sustained since assessee failed to substantiate the nature and source of cash deposits in bank.
Facts- The appellant herein / assessee was served with a notice u/s. 148 of the IT Act by registered post and thereafter, his case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s. 142(1) of the IT Act was also served to him fixing the date of hearing as 12-6-20 15 which he did not respond leading to extending of last opportunity by again issuing notice u/s. 142(1) of the IT Act by Registered Post with Acknowledgment Due and finally, on 16-6- 2016, since the appellant did not comply with the above stated notices, a memo was issued to him to show cause why assessment be not completed ex parte u/s. 144 of the IT Act as per the information and documents avail-able on record which was served to him, but it also remained unanswered and again it was not responded by the appellant / assessee.
Finding no way, AO called information u/s. 133(6) of the IT Act from the Manager, State Bank of India Bacheli in response to which the Bank had submitted copy of the statement of the bank account of the assessee on 20-6-2016 and on verification of the said bank account, it was revealed that the assessee had made cash deposits of ₹ 11,44,070/- in his Savings Bank maintained by him in the said branch. Thus, the assessment was completed ex parte u/s. 144 of the IT Act and ₹ 11,44,070/- was treated as the assessee’s undisclosed and unexplained income and it was added to the total income of the assessee u/s. 68 r.w.s. 69A of the IT Act.
