Case Law Details
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.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT PATNA
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 28.07.2022 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).
2. Brief facts of the case are that based on an information obtained from AIMS database by using ITBA modules, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had deposited Rs.39,23,000/- in various bank accounts during the period of demonetisation. As the assessee did not file a return of income and the source of the said deposits were remained unexplained and unaccounted for during the relevant assessment year, the Assessing Officer believed that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer issued notices u/s 142(1) along with 148 of the Act to the assessee but there was no response from the assessee. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer obtained copies of assessee’s bank statements from the concerned banks where the assessee deposited cash during the demonetization period under the provision of section 133(6) of the Act and found that the assessee had deposited on different dates a total sum of Rs.1,10,67,604/- in different bank accounts. Therefore, the Assessing Officer treated the entire amount of Rs.1,10,67,604/- as unexplained and unaccounted income u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act by adding it to the total income of the assessee.
3. Dissatisfied with the above order, the assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) but the assessee has also failed to appear before the ld. CIT(A) despite serving notices. Consequently, the ld. CIT(A) passed an order by dismissing the appeal of the assessee by the upholding the order of the Assessing Officer.
4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed the present appeal after a considerable delay of 149 days before this Tribunal and no one has appeared on behalf of the assessee.
5. On the other hand, the DR stated that the assessee is a habitual defaulter which is clearly reflected from the orders of the authorities below. He argued that sufficient opportunities have already been provided to the assessee and the assessee failed to respond.
6. We, after hearing the ld. DR and perusing the materials available on record, find that the Tribunal issued multiple notices on different dates e. 09.05.24, 22.10.24, 06.01.25, 08.01.25 and 09.01.25 but neither anyone turned up nor any representation has been given. We additionally find that the assessee has also failed to file any application for condonation of delay of 149 days in filing the present appeal explaining such delay before us. In this respect, we emphasise that procedural compliance like filing of application for condonation of delay is essential for maintaining of an appeal. In the absence of any application of condonation of such delay and also on the ground of any representation before us on the part of the assessee, we dismiss the present appeal. Therefore, we confirm the addition of Rs.1,10,67,604/- as unexplained and unaccounted income u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act made by the Assessing Officer.
7. In terms of the above, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Author Bio
