2022 (12) TMI 380 - AT - Income Tax

Addition of cash deposits and sundry creditors - Ex parte orders passed - non-compliance by the assessee to various notices issued to it by the lower authorities - assessee has chosen not to prosecute her case despite repeated opportunities given on several occasions - HELD THAT - As the assessee has chosen to make this plea of restoring her matter to the lower authorities before us without even making any effort to substantiate the explanation offered. All documents filed before us in support of her case as mentioned above are only stated as being true-copies . Even the affidavit filed by the assessee before us, stating allegedly on oath the reason for non compliance to notices of authorities below, we find, is not original copy, but only mentioned as true copy . Such documents have no evidentiary value. It is the assessee who has sought redressal of her grievance against orders of the IT authorities by filing appeal before us. The assessee cannot sit back after filing the appeal seeking adjournment time and again and by simply filing written submissions to make a plea totally unsupported and unsubstantiated. It seems that the assessee has chosen to ignore the gravity of the situation despite being aware of it, which is evident by the fact that she has repeatedly filed appeal before the first appellate authority and also before us. Looking to the non-cooperative attitude of the assessee right from the very beginning i.e. the assessment proceedings, we are not inclined to show any liberty to such an assessee who does not appear to be interested to fight for her own cause. Since there is nothing before us dislodging the Ld.CIT(A) s order we uphold the order of the ld.CIT(A) confirming additions of both cash deposits and sundry creditors - Grounds of appeal of the assessee are rejected.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Asst. Year 2009-10.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) by the Assessee. Despite repeated adjournments sought by the assessee, none appeared on behalf of the assessee during the hearing. The appeal proceeded based on the written submissions filed. The authorities noted the non-cooperative behavior of the assessee during assessment and appellate proceedings, leading to ex parte orders. The case was reopened under section 147 due to unexplained cash deposits and sundry creditors. The additions made by the Assessing Officer were upheld by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) due to lack of justification or pleadings by the assessee.

The assessee contended that she was in the business of trading shares and had returned profits in her income tax return. She claimed that her absence during proceedings was due to appointing a counsel who failed to represent her adequately. The assessee requested the appeal be restored for reconsideration, providing documents supporting her claim. However, the Tribunal did not accept the plea, noting that the documents submitted were only "true-copies" and lacked evidentiary value. The Tribunal found the plea unsupported and unsubstantiated, given the assessee's repeated appeals and noncooperative attitude throughout the proceedings. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the additions of cash deposits and sundry creditors, rejecting the grounds of appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee, upholding the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) order on the additions. The decision was pronounced in court on 8th August 2022 at Ahmedabad.