2019 (8) TMI 507 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal confirms tax treatment of deposits as unexplained investments

Majeti Venkata Mutyala Rao Versus ITO, Ward-1, Tanuku.

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax's order under Section 263, confirming the treatment of deposits in Corporation Bank as unexplained ... Revision u/s 263 - Unexplained investments u/sec.69 - entire amount of deposits appearing in the bank account with Corporation Bank, Tanuku as unexplained investment - HELD THAT:- CIT directed the AO to treat the deposits made by the assessee with the Corporation Bank, Tanuku as unexplained investments u/sec.69 of the Act. AO issued a notice to the assessee. The assessee neither appeared before the Assessing Officer nor filed any written submissions. AO by following the directions of the ld. CIT, assessment was completed u/sec. 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act, dated 25/03/2015. We find that the assessee has not challenged the order passed by the ld. CIT, therefore order passed by him is attained finality. It is the duty of the Assessing Officer to pass the assessment order as directed by the ld. CIT u/sec. 263. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer has completed the assessment, the same is confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). We find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). Thus, this appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Validity of the order passed under Section 263 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT).2. Justification of treating the deposits in Corporation Bank as unexplained investments under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act.3. Adequacy of opportunities provided to the assessee to explain the deposits.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the order passed under Section 263 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT):The CIT exercised powers under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, calling the assessment records and finding that the Assessing Officer (AO) did not examine transactions with Corporation Bank. The CIT opined that the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The CIT directed the AO to treat the entire amount of deposits in the Corporation Bank account as unexplained investment under Section 69, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard. The assessee did not challenge the CIT's order, and the AO subsequently completed the assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 263, treating Rs. 23,31,191/- as unexplained investment.2. Justification of treating the deposits in Corporation Bank as unexplained investments under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act:The CIT's order under Section 263 highlighted that the deposits in the Corporation Bank account were not disclosed in the return of income. The CIT noted that the assessee did not respond to notices and failed to explain the sources of cash deposits. The AO treated the deposits as unexplained investments under Section 69, as directed by the CIT. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition, stating that the assessee did not provide any evidence to substantiate the claims and that the original assessment order was erroneous. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order, confirming the addition under Section 69.3. Adequacy of opportunities provided to the assessee to explain the deposits:The CIT's order under Section 263 and the subsequent assessment highlighted that the assessee was given multiple opportunities to explain the deposits but failed to respond. The CIT(A) observed that the assessee's contention of not being afforded proper opportunity was baseless and incorrect. The AO provided opportunities for the assessee to substantiate the claims, but the assessee did not appear or file any details. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s finding that adequate opportunities were provided, and the addition under Section 69 was justified due to the assessee's failure to furnish explanations or evidence.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, confirming the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal found that the CIT's order under Section 263 was valid, the deposits in the Corporation Bank were rightly treated as unexplained investments under Section 69, and the assessee was provided with adequate opportunities to explain the deposits but failed to do so. The appeal was dismissed, and the assessment order was upheld.