AI Drafter 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (2) TMI 1260
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3. That the addition of Rs.13,53,000/- added u/s. 69A of the IT Act, 1961 is arbitrary and bad in law. 4. That the provisions applied u/s.115BBE of IT Act, 1961 is not applicable, hence it is arbitrary, bad in law and unjustified. 5. That the confirmation of addition of Rs.13,53,000/- without appreciating the documents and explanation available on portal filed during the year under consideration is arbitrary and bad in law. 6. That the assessee craves leave to raise any other ground/s on or before the date of hearing to prove that the order is bad." 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee had e-filed his return of income for the A.Y.2017-18 on 26.06.2017 declaring a total income Rs.3,41,650/-. The return of income filed by the assessee was thereafter processed u/s.143(1) of the Act on 31.10.2017. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS and notice u/s.143(2) of the Act was issued to him. 3. During the course of the assessment proceedings, it was observed by the A.O that the assessee who claimed to be a RTO agent and was also running a stationary/photocopy shop, had made cash deposits of Rs.16,38,500/- in his....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it is axiomatic that no court or tribunal is supposed to continue a proceeding before it when the party who has moved it has not appeared nor cared to remain present. The dismissal, therefore, is an inherent power which every tribunal possesses." 6.4 The principle that every court that is to decide on a matter of dispute, inherently possesses the power to dismiss the case for default, has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Dr. P. Nalla Thampy Vs. Shankar (1984 (Supp) SCC 63 and the case of New India Assurance vs. Srinivasan (2000) 3 SCC 242. In the later case, the Apex Court has held as under:- "That every court or judicial body or authority, which has a duty to decide a list between two parties, inherently possesses the power to dismiss a case in default. Where a case is called up for hearing and the party is not present, the court or the judicial or quasi-judicial body instituted ligation to keep the matter pending before it or to pursue the matter on behalf of the complainant who had instituted the proceedings. That is not the function of the court or, for that matter, of a judicial or quasi-judicial body. In the absence of the complainant,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ide natural justice to appellant, I proceed to decide the appeal based on facts and material available on records. 7. Even on merits, a decision based on material available on record, would go against appellant. 7.1 Ld. JAO has opined on the issues as follows in assessment order, relevant extract of the assessment order is reproduced hereunder for ease of reference: "7. In view of the above discussion and non-production of any plausible explanation in respect of all the cash deposits in old currency (SBN) is out of the cash in hand of the assessee and received from his clients prior the demonetization period i.e. 09/11/2016, nature and source of cash deposit in the bank account of the assessee in old currency and the SBN (Specified Bank Notes) appears to be against the common probability and therefore remains unverifiable and unexplained too. Keeping in view of the business trend of assessee, first cash deposit made by the assessee during the demonetization period for Rs.28,500/- is hereby allowed and cash deposited by him on subsequent date in his bank account for Rs.13,53,000/- is treated as unexplained money of the assessees. Hence Rs.13,53,000/- is he....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be the owner of money, bullion, jewelry, or other valuable articles. These assets are not recorded in the books of account maintained by the assessee for any source of income. The assessee does not provide a satisfactory explanation regarding the nature and source of acquisition of these assets. If the explanation provided by the assessee is not deemed satisfactory by the Assessing Officer, they have the authority to treat the value of the assets as the income of the assessee for that financial year. The conditions under which this section can be applied include: Ownership of Assets: The assessee (taxpayer) is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery, or other valuable articles during a financial year. Unrecorded in Books: The identified money, bullion, jewellery, or valuable articles are not recorded in the books of account maintained by the assessee for any source of income. Lack of Explanation: The assessee does not provide a satisfactory explanation about the nature and source of the money, bullion, jewellery, or valuable articles found in their possession. Assessment Officer's Decision: I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at he was not the owner was on the person who affirmed that he was not the owner, was incorrect and inapplicable to taxation proceedings. This contention was rejected. The Bombay High Court held that what was meant by saying that the Evidence Act did not apply to the proceedings under the Act was that the rigour of the rules of evidence contained in the Evidence Act, was not applicable but that did not mean that the taxing authorities were desirous of invoking the principles of the Act in proceedings before them, they were prevented from doing so. Secondly, all that section 110 does is that it embodies a salutary principle of common law jurisprudence which could be attracted to a get of circumstances that satisfy its condition. 7. We are of the opinion that this is a correct approach and following this principle the High Court in the instant case was right in holding that the value of the wrist-watches represented the concealed income of the assessee. 8. Section 69A of the Act was inserted in the Finance Act, 1964, and it came into force with effect from 1-1-1964. The High Court has rightly held that the expression 'income' as used in section 69A, has wide....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly the source and nature of an amount received by him in accounting year, and if he fails to discharge that onus, income-tax authorities are entitled to draw an inference that amount received was of an income nature. Where assessee not having satisfactorily proved source and nature of amount which he encased on demonetization, Ld. JAO was perfectly justified in drawing an inference that said sum was of an income nature. - Chunilal Rastogi vs. CIT [1955] 28 ITR 341 (Pat) - it is by now an established principle of law that the onus is on the assessee to prove positively the source and nature of an amount received by him in the accounting year, and if he fails to discharge that onus, the income-tax authorities are entitled to draw an inference that the amount received was of an income nature.' - Anil Kumar Singh vs. CIT [1972] 84 ITR 307 (Cal.) - 'Whether as regards to Rs. 6,000 which assessee had with him, onus was on assessee to establish that assessee had this amount of cash with him and since he had fai7ed to discharge that onus to satisfaction of revenue authority, addition of that amount was justified - Held, yes' - M. L. Tewary vs. CIT [19....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en made by the assessee between 08.11.2016 and 12.11.2016 though shows availability of funds along with recovery from the debtors, still it cannot be said that this is a source for the specified bank notes being the demonetised currency which has been deposited in the bank on 12.11.2016. I am unable to even consider a position that Rs.28 lakhs SBNs could have been with the assessee before 08.11.2016 insofar as the cash book only shows cash availability of Rs.252.40. Admittedly, if the assessee desires to take the stand that the SBNs were the currency received between 08.11.2016 to 12.11.2016, it would be incumbent upon the assessee to prove to the revenue as to from whom he has received the SBNs. In the absence of such prove, the deposit of SBN to the extent of Rs.28 lakhs will have to be treated as the unexplained investment of the assessee. In these circumstances, I find no error in the order of the Id. CIT(A). Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.' 2) Dismissed as premature. 3) Dismissed as general in nature. No evidences have been submitted during appeal pro....