Best judgment assessment and unexplained cash deposits upheld where assessee failed to file return or participate; appeal dismissed

Bestjudgment assessment under section 144 was sustained because cash deposits in the assessee's bank account were treated as unexplained money under the relevant income provisions, and no evidence was placed on record to rebut that treatment; consequence: the addition was upheld. The assessee's voluntary failure to file a return, to respond to notices, or to participate in assessment and appellate proceedings was held fatal to its case; consequence: the plea for restoration for fresh adjudication was rejected and the appeal dismissed. The tribunal emphasised that the right to appeal exists only to remedy a legal grievance, not to permit firsttime factual contestation after nonparticipation.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the ex-parte order by the CIT(A) was justified.
2. Whether the addition of Rs. 2,47,65,369/- under Section 69A r.w.s.115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was justified.

Issue 1: Ex-parte Order by CIT(A)
The assessee argued that the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order was unjustified and violated principles of natural justice. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had provided multiple opportunities for the assessee to present its case, but the assessee failed to respond or appear. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) was left with no option but to decide the case based on the material on record due to the assessee's non-compliance. Therefore, the Tribunal found no merit in the claim that the CIT(A) had not provided a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

Issue 2: Addition under Section 69A r.w.s.115BBE
The assessee contended that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,47,65,369/- as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had failed to file its return of income, respond to statutory notices, or provide any explanation regarding the source of the cash deposits. Consequently, the AO treated the cash deposits as unexplained money and made an addition under Section 69A. The CIT(A) upheld this addition due to the absence of any evidence from the assessee. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had rightly sustained the addition made by the AO, as the assessee did not provide any material to substantiate its claim.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s order and the addition made by the AO. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee's non-compliance and lack of evidence justified the ex-parte order and the addition under Section 69A. The appeal was found to be devoid of merit and was dismissed accordingly.

---