TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 1402
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....") under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") dated 31/10/2019 for A.Y. 2017-18. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us: "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is erroneous and unsustainable in law apart from being passed in violation of principles of natural justice. The Id. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that proper notices were not served on the appellant as required under section 282 of the Act r.w. rule 127 of the Rules, and therefore Appellant could not put forth his case. 2. Without prejudice to the above, the Id. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition made by the AO of Rs. 16,86,550 as unexplained m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the purpose of utilizing the same at the relevant time on the marriage of his daughter and to meet other personal expenses. The assessee to support his aforesaid contention had filed before the AO a copy of the sale deed No. 11050/2018, dated 07/12/2016. 4. Ostensibly, we find that the AO did not find favour with the assessee's claim that the cash deposits of Rs. 13.20 lakhs made in his bank accounts during the demonetization period were sourced out of the sale proceeds of agricultural land as the copy of the sale deed No. 11050/2018, dated 07/12/2016 showed the entire sale consideration at Rs. 2.40 lakhs only. Apart from that, the AO observed that the subject land as per the sale deed was sold by the assessee along with his brother as a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ies of being heard by the AO. In response to the notices the appellant reiterated in the submission before the AO that the appellant had sold agricultural land at a sale consideration of Rs. 20,00,000/- and an amount of Rs. 13,20,000/- was deposited in two bank accounts. But after verification of the bank statements by the AO it is seen that cash deposits aggregating to Rs. 5,20,000/- and cash deposits of Rs. 3,00,000/- on 21.09.2016 in Andhra Bank and cash deposit of Rs. 8,00,000/- was made in State Bank of India on 11.11.2016 during the demonetization period. According to the AO, the appellant's submission that the cash deposits of Rs. 13,20,000/- have been made during the demonetization period from out of the receipt of sale proceeds....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the AO. The initial onus is on the appellant to bring on record any cogent evidences substantiate the claim made against the addition made by the AO. As the appellant has failed to discharge this initial onus, I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the AO. Hence, the action of the AO in making addition of Rs. 16,86,550/- u/s.69A of the Act stand upheld. Ground no. 2 is dismissed. 8. Ground no. 3 is making the addition of Rs. 20.682/- as income from other sources. The appellant had received an interest income of Rs. 20,682/- from savings banks accounts. As per the IT Act, 1961, the interest income is brought to tax under the head 'income from other sources' u/s. 56 of the Act. It says 'If the interest earne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that in compliance to the notice dated 24/12/2020 the assessee had well within the stipulated time period i.e., on 08/01/2021 submitted before the CIT(A) that he was considering opting for Vivad-Se-Vishwas Scheme and was seeking the necessary professional advice of a Chartered Accountant. Accordingly, the assessee had for the aforesaid reason requested the CIT(A) for adjourning the matter to the first week of February, 2021. Also, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee in compliance to the notice dated 05/03/2023 had once again requested the CIT(A) for some further time as the written submission to be filed before him were under preparation and the same could not be compiled as there was a delay in collecting the relevant information. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd 05/03/2023. 11. We find that though the assessee on the last occasion i.e., vide his request for adjournment dated 13/03/2023 had sought for ten days of time for furnishing the requisite details, but on a specific query by the Bench we were informed that no such reply/submissions were thereafter filed with the CIT(A). At the same time, we find it incomprehensible that the appellate proceedings before the CIT(A) which were triggered vide an appeal filed by the assessee on 20/02/2020 took more than 5½ years and had finally culminated vide an order dated 20/08/2025. Although, we deprecate the conduct of the assessee who had sought for adjournments and at no occasion filed any written submission with the CIT(A), but at the same tim....