2024 (4) TMI 986

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....O) under Section 144/147 of the Act dated 16.12.2018 for the Assessment Year (for short, the AY) 2014-15. 3. The facts, in brief, are that the appellant, on account of his illness, could not file his income tax return for the AY 2014-2015, the Assessing Officer i.e. the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Ambikapur, (for short, the AO) assessed the income of the appellant to be Rs. 34,67,700/- on the basis of information available in the Actionable Information Monitoring System of the Income Tax Business Application and was also imposed with penalty and interest for not submitting the return within time, vide its order dated 16.12.2018. The appellant submitted its return for the AY 2014-2015 declaring his total income to be Rs. 9,99,250/- on 27.12.2018. Thereafter, the order of the AO dated 16.12.2018 was was challenged before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) {for short, the CIT(A)} which was also dismissed vide order dated 29.03.2023 on the ground that despite giving several opportunities during the appellate proceedings, the appellant failed to explain the nature and source of cash deposited to the tune of Rs. 34,67,700/- in the Savings Bank Account. The order of the CIT(A) was ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e allowed in 9 cases. In all these cases mandate of Rule 46 of Income Tax Rules, 1962 was overlooked. 6. It is further submitted that as per Rule 46 of IT Rules and provisions of Section 282 of the Act read with Rule 127 of IT Rules and Section 13 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, in case of dropping the notices and order on e-filing portal, the date of receipt is deemed to be the date when the addressee has downloaded the communication. Accordingly, the delay in this case is neither deliberate nor attributable to lackadaisical attitude of the appellant as presumed by learned ITAT. 7. In support of his contentions, Mr. Sinha relies on a decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in in Munjal BCU Centre of Innovation and Entrepreneurship vs. CIT(E)- 2024(3) TMI 1479 (P&H HC), wherein it has been held that it is essential that before any action is taken, a communication of the notice must be in terms of the provisions and a pragmatic view has to be adopted always in these circumstances. An individual or company is not expected keep the e-portal open all the time so as to have knowledge of departments actions. Further, in Shakti Steel Trading v. The Asstt. Commissioner (ST) ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mount of cash deposits of Rs.34,67,700/- as the assessee's unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals) but without success. As the assessee had failed to participate in the course of the proceedings before the CIT(Appeals), therefore, he dismissed the appeal of the assessee after considering material available on record. 11. Though the AO had provided sufficient opportunities to the assessee to represent his case, it was the assessee who, for reasons best known to him, despite being well informed about the ongoing assessment proceedings, had not only failed to file his return of income but had also evaded his participation in the said proceedings. Also, the assessee had failed to file any reply to the notices that were served on him during the assessment proceedings. Accordingly, the A.O., in the absence of any return of income and also any explanation forthcoming about the source of the cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee, who had chosen to lie low and neither participate in the assessment proceedings nor furnished any reply to the notices that were issued to him, thus, was constrained to trea....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d by the CIT(Appeals) vide an ex-parte order dated 29.03.2023 etc. 13. Under section 69A of the Act, what is provided is that if an assessee is found to be the owner of any money, jewellery or any other valuable articles and such money is not recorded in the books of account and fails to offer any explanation about the nature and source thereof or in case any such explanation, if offered, is not satisfactory in the opinion of the AO, then it may be deemed to be the income of the assessee for such financial year. Ultimately, therefore, it would be dependent on the nature of the explanation submitted by the assessee and the satisfaction of the AO about the acceptability thereof, which is the sine qua non for invoking the provisions contained in section 69A of the Act. In the present case, the assessee has failed to file his return of income but had also evaded his participation in the proceedings. In absence of any plausible explanation of the assessee as regards the delay in filing of the appeal, his request for condonation of the same, when read in the backdrop of his conduct before the authorities below cannot be summarily accepted on the very face of it. There is no substance in....