Dharmendra Kumar Vs ITO (ITAT Patna)
The case of Dharmendra Kumar vs. ITO pertains to the addition of ₹1.10 crore as unexplained income under Section 69A read with Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act. During the demonetization period, the assessee had deposited significant sums in various bank accounts but failed to file a return of income or provide evidence explaining the sources of these deposits. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated proceedings under Sections 147, 148, and 142(1) of the Act. Despite repeated notices, the assessee did not respond. Relying on bank statements obtained under Section 133(6), the AO treated the entire amount as unaccounted income.
The assessee appealed before the CIT(A), but there was no response despite several notices. Consequently, the CIT(A) upheld the AO’s decision. The assessee then approached the ITAT Patna, albeit with a delay of 149 days, without filing an application to condone the delay or making a representation. After reviewing the facts, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of procedural compliance, including timely appeals and adequate responses to statutory notices. With no justification for the delay or representation from the assessee, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal and confirmed the AO’s addition of ₹1.10 crore as unexplained income. This case highlights the importance of adhering to procedural and compliance requirements in tax matters.
