2023 (2) TMI 792 - AT - Income Tax

Appeal dismissed for lack of evidence; CIT(A)'s decision upheld. Failure to provide supporting details led to confirmation of assessment.

Shri Sengoda Gounder Natarajan Versus The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Namakkal

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision due to the appellant's failure to provide details supporting the ... Assessment order u/s 144 - Unexplained cash deposits - assessee has not filed his return of income and just filed a single sheet containing abstract of cash deposits and reported availing of loan by the assessee as source for cash deposits - CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee in the absence of any response or written submissions, information or document - HELD THAT:- Since the assessee has not filed any details in support of the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee, we find no infirmity in the order passed the ld. CIT(A). Thus, the appellate order passed by the ld. CIT(A) stands confirmed. - Decided against assessee. Issues:Assessment based on cash deposits during demonetization period, non-filing of return of income, dismissal of appeal by CIT(A) due to lack of response from the appellant.Analysis:The appeal was filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) concerning the assessment year 2017-18. The Assessing Officer noted cash deposits made by the assessee during the demonetization period and issued notices under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, requiring the assessee to file a valid return of income. Despite multiple notices, the assessee did not comply or provide any material evidence. Consequently, the Assessing Officer proceeded with a best judgment assessment under section 144 of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to the absence of any response, written submissions, or documents from the appellant.The assessee, being aggrieved, appealed before the Tribunal. However, during the hearing, neither the assessee nor any representative appeared, leading to the Tribunal deciding the appeal on merits after hearing the ld. DR. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal as the appellant failed to provide details in support of the grounds of appeal, despite multiple notices issued under section 250 of the Income Tax Act. The non-compliance with the notices indicated the appellant's lack of interest in pursuing the appeal. Consequently, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and confirmed the appellate order.In conclusion, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed by the Tribunal, upholding the decision of the CIT(A) due to the appellant's failure to provide details in support of the grounds of appeal, resulting in the confirmation of the assessment based on cash deposits during the demonetization period.