2023 (7) TMI 455 - AT - Income Tax

Addition of cash deposits - ex-parte orders u/s 144 - as submitted assessee had deposited cash in his bank account as against the addition of cash made by AO and further out of the six bank accounts reported by the AO, two bank accounts does not belong to the assessee - HELD THAT - As before the AO the assessee did not appear and, therefore, the AO had no option, except to pass ex-parte orders u/s 144 and frame the assessment on the basis of material available before him. Before CIT(A) also no submissions were made by the assessee. Before us, all no material has been placed by the assessee to support his contentions and to point out any fallacy in the findings of lower authorities. When the appeal is filed before the appellate authorities by the assessee himself against the orders of the lower authorities, it is expected that the assessee shall put forth some documentary evidences in support of his contentions as it is the duty of the assessee to lead evidence in support of its claim and for the adjudicating authority to decide upon the sustainability of the claim on the basis of the evidence led by the parties before it. Assessee did not appear before any of the authorities. In absence of any contrary material brought on record to rebut the findings of lower authorities, we dismiss the grounds of the assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are related to the assessment of income tax for the Assessment Year 2015-16, specifically regarding the addition of cash deposits made by the Assessing Officer.

Assessment by Assessing Officer (AO):
The individual assessee electronically filed the return of income for A.Y. 2015-16, declaring an income of Rs. 4,21,630. Despite notices served, the assessee did not appear before the AO. Consequently, the AO framed the assessment under section 144 of the Act, assessing the total income at Rs. 1,22,05,410.

Appeal before CIT(A) and Tribunal:
The assessee appealed the AO's order before CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal noting the absence of the assessee during the proceedings. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee included errors in law and facts by the CIT(A) and the AO regarding cash deposits and bank accounts. However, the assessee did not provide any supporting evidence or appear before any authorities.

Decision of the Tribunal:
The Tribunal observed that the assessee did not appear before the AO, CIT(A), or the Tribunal despite multiple opportunities granted. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of actively pursuing appeals and providing necessary cooperation. The Tribunal noted the negligent approach of the assessee in not participating in the proceedings. The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' orders due to the lack of cooperation and evidence from the assessee.

Cash Deposit Addition:
The AO added cash deposits totaling Rs. 1,17,83,775 as income from an unexplained source under section 69 of the Act. Despite opportunities, the assessee did not provide explanations or appear before the authorities. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, and the Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal due to the absence of supporting evidence.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee based on the lack of cooperation, absence of evidence, and failure to appear before the authorities. The Tribunal affirmed the lower authorities' decisions regarding the addition of cash deposits, emphasizing the importance of actively participating in the appeal process and providing necessary documentation.