TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 41
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the ground/s of appeal." 2. Succinctly stated, the A.O based on information that the assessee during the year under consideration, i.e. A.Y.2014-15 had though made cash deposits of Rs. 19,71,000/- and was in receipt of interest income of Rs. 32,244/-, but had not filed his return of income for the said year, initiated proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act. Notice u/s. 148 of the Act, dated 05.03.2020 was issued to the assessee. 3. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the A.O queried the assessee about the source of the cash deposits of Rs. 19,71,000/-. In reply, it was stated by the assessee that he was a commerce graduate and was earning commission income a/w. income from part time job. The assessee stated that as his income during the subject year was below the taxable limit, therefore, for the said reason the return of income was not filed by him. Apropos the source of the cash deposits, the assessee had filed before the A.O a fund flow statement, wherein he had claimed to be in possession of opening cash in hand at the beginning of the F.Y 2012 of Rs. 20,03,135/-. Further, it was stated by him that he had during the year under consideration earned an income of Rs. 1,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....therefore, the latter was constrained to proceed with and dispose off the appeal on an ex-parte basis. The CIT(Appeals), taking cognizance of the fact that as the assessee had failed to place on record any material to dislodge the observation of the A.O, upheld the addition made by him. For the sake of clarity, the observations of the CIT(Appeals) are culled out as under: "5.4. The conduct of the Appellant, as inferred from the aforesaid table, evidences that the Appellant is not interested in prosecuting the Appeal. 5.5. The law aids those who are vigilant, not those who sleep upon their rights. This principle is embodied in the well-known Latin dictum, "VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT". The conduct of the Appellant, as inferred from the aforesaid table, evidences that the Appellant fails on this principle of equity. Even the Hon'ble Courts, in various pronouncements, have frowned upon the Appellants who file appeals but thereafter do not take any further interest in prosecuting those appeals. I) The Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata in the case of Pradeep Kumar Jhawar Kolkata vs. DCIT - CC - XXI (15 March, 2016) (ITA Nos. 450/Kol/2013....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l pronouncements that have been pressed into service by the Ld. AR to drive home his contentions. 9. Shri Deepak Meghani, Ld. Authorized Representative (for short 'AR') for the assessee at the threshold submitted that both the lower authorities had erred in treating the cash deposits/credits in the bank account of the assessee as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. Elaborating further on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that the cash deposits of Rs. 19.71 lacs made by the assessee during the subject year in his bank account with State Bank of India, Branch: Goshala Para in three tranches, viz. (i) 30.03.2013: Rs. 1,000/-; (ii) 03.05.2013: 9,70,000/-; and (iii) 21.10.2013: Rs. 10,00,000/- were sourced out of explained sources. Carrying his contention further, the Ld. AR submitted that as the aforementioned cash deposits in the assessee's bank account were sourced out of, viz. (i) past/accumulated savings; (ii) current year income; (iii) cash gift received from his father, viz. Shri Prem Lal Vishwakarma: Rs. 3 lacs; and (iv) cash gifts received at the time of his marriage on 12.06.2005 : Rs. 3.50 lacs, therefore, there was no justification for the A.O to have summarily held t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....had however failed to place on record any evidence to substantiate the same. Apart from that, the claim of the assessee that he was in receipt of cash gifts from his father of Rs. 3 lacs and cash gifts at the time of marriage on 12.06.2005 of Rs. 3.50 lacs, the same not only in absence of any supporting material cannot be summarily accepted on the very face of it; but even otherwise, considering the fact that the said amounts are stated to have been received way back in the year 2012 & 2005, respectively, therefore, the availability of the same with the assessee as on the date of making the cash deposits in his bank account is incomprehensible. 12. As regards the reliance placed by the Ld. AR on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. P.K. Noorjahan (1999) 237 ITR 570 (SC), the same being distinguishable on facts would not carry his case any further. The facts before the Hon'ble Supreme Court were that a lady aged 20 years, had during the A.Y.1968- 69 and A.Y.1969-70 purchased certain pieces of land on November 27, 1968, for Rs. 25,902/- and on November 15, 1969, for Rs. 34,628/-. The assessee on being queried about the source of the aforesaid....