Seema Katar Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
The appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2017-18 was dismissed by the ITAT Delhi. The appeal arose from the assessment order dated 02.12.2019 passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 49(2), New Delhi. The assessee did not appear at the hearing, and notices sent to the address in Form No. 36 were returned as “No such person,” with no updated address provided. Consequently, the ITAT proceeded with the hearing in the absence of the assessee, after hearing the Learned Departmental Representative (DR) and reviewing the record.
The DR contended that the appeal was defective because the details of appeal fees in Form No. 36 were not provided. The main ground of appeal challenged an addition of Rs. 28,00,000 under Section 69A for unexplained cash deposits made during the demonetization period. The assessee claimed that the cash was withdrawn from her bank account over 55 months (April 2012 to November 2016) and kept at home for her parents’ medical expenses.
The ITAT upheld the orders of the lower authorities, noting that the burden of proof to explain the source of deposits rests on the assessee, as established by the Supreme Court in CIT, Salem vs K. Chinnathamban. The assessee’s explanation was deemed implausible because she held large sums of cash at home for over four years, incurred minimal expenditure for alleged medical needs, provided no medical evidence, and gave no rationale for not using banking channels. The choice of January 2012 as a start date for withdrawals appeared arbitrary and aimed at matching the total sum of Rs. 28 lakhs. The ITAT concluded that the explanation was a mere afterthought, and the assessee failed to substantiate her claims with credible evidence.
