2023 (12) TMI 1198 - AT - Income Tax

Society's appeal dismissed for non-cooperation in assessment proceedings under Section 144 cash deposits treated as unexplained income

M/s. Adim Jati Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Korba Versus The Income Tax Officer-2, Korba (C.G.)

ITAT Raipur dismissed the assessee society's appeal challenging best judgment assessment under Section 144. The AO treated cash deposits in bank account ... Best judgment assessment u/s 144 - treating cash deposits in the assessee’s bank account as its unexplained money u/s.69A r.w.s.115BBE - HELD THAT:- We find that it is not a case where the CIT(Appeals) had discarded any material available on the record and summarily dismissed the assessee's appeal in limine for want of prosecution. Instead, it is a case where in the absence of any evidence whatsoever, whether documentary or otherwise, which would substantiate that the A.O was unjustified in treating the cash deposits in the assessee’s bank account as its unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act, the CIT(Appeals) had sustained the addition made by the A.O u/s 144 of the Act, dated 11.12.2019. Now, when the assessee society, as per its volition, had not filed any return of income for the year under consideration A.Y 2017-18, i.e., either u/s 139 or in compliance to notice u/s 148 of the Act; or appeared before the A.O during the assessment proceedings or placed on his record any written submission or filed replies to the queries that were raised vide notice(s) issued u/s.142(1) of the Act; nor despite sufficient opportunities participated in the proceedings before the CIT(Appeals), then, in the absence of any evidence whatsoever, whether documentary or otherwise, which would reveal that there was no justification for treating the cash deposits in the assessee’s bank account as its unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act, we are of a firm conviction that no infirmity emerges from the order of the CIT(Appeals) who had rightly approved the order passed by the A.O u/s 144. Although Section 253 of the Act, inter alia, vests with an assessee a statutory right to assail before the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), but a careful perusal of the aforesaid statutory provision reveals that the same can be triggered only where the assessee appellant is, inter alia, aggrieved with “ any order of assessment”. Thus, considering the scope of Sec. 253 of the Act, it transpires that the same lays down as a pre-condition a grievance of the assessee appellant arising from the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Apropos, the claim of the Ld. A.R. that the matter in all fairness be restored to the file of the A.O. for fresh adjudication, the same does not favor us. As observed by us herein above, the grounds based on which the order of the CIT(Appeals) has been assailed before us are devoid and bereft of any merit; therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed on the said count itself. Apart from that, we are of a firm conviction that the right vested with an appellant to approach the tribunal by preferring an appeal before it is for a limited purpose, i.e. a grievance that the assessment framed by the AO, or for that matter, order of the CIT(Appeal) were not according to law. In no case can the Tribunal be taken as a forum for an appellant who, as per his volition, had either adopted an evasive or lackadaisical approach before the lower authorities and not participated in the assessment or appellate proceedings to come up with its case for the first time before the Tribunal and, as a matter of right seek restoring of the impugned order to the file of the lower authorities for fresh adjudication. Assessee appeal dismissed. 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.115BBEThe 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.