TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1625
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d for hearing and on all previous occasions, the assessee, we have noted has remained unrepresented, except on one occasion, when the assessee has been noted to be represented by Sh. Nitin Marothiya, Adv. of the assessee. Therefore, it is abundantly clear, that on all the occasions when the matter has been listed for hearing, the assessee has remained unrepresented throughout. All notices of hearing have been issued at the address stated in Form No.36 of the appeal filed before us, and we have noted that the same have not returned un-served. It is abundantly clear that the assessee is not interested in pursuing its appeal. The present appeal, therefore was heard ex parte the assessee with the assistance of the Ld. DR. 4. We shall first take up assesses appeal in quantum proceedings in ITA No. 1214/JPR/2025 pertaining to AY 2019-20.Theassessee in this appeal has taken following grounds of appeal:- 1.That the learned Appellate Authority was wrongly confirmed the amount of addition of Rs. 2500000/-towards unexplained cash of Assessee u/s 69A while Section 69A casts an initial burden on the assessee to offer an explanation regarding the nature and source of the money. Howev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gally sustainable. If the addition fails due to incomplete enquiry or acceptance of a plausible explanation, the consequential levy under 115BBE must also fail. CIT v. Smt. P.K. Noorjahan (supra) If the addition is not mandatory under 69A, 115BBE cannot apply automatically. 5. Violation of Natural Justice The AO/CIT(A) did not confront the appellant with any adverse material or outcome of enquiries, nor attempt to verify the lender's details despite being on record. This violates the principles of natural justice. Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE (2015) 281 CTR 241 (SC) - Non-grant of opportunity to rebut evidence amounts to a breach of natural justice. 6.The Assessee craves to add, amend, alter, delete all or any of the grounds of appeal before its disposal. 5. Briefly stated the present case involves a search and seizure action conducted u/s 132A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 05-02- 2019 by the DDIT (Investigation) Unit-5(4), New Delhi on Sh. Mahavir Prasad Bohara and Sh. Sahab Ram. The action was based on information received from the SHO of P.S. Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi, regarding possession of unaccounted cash amounting to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1(1A) that the cash was his and related to business purposes. The requisite satisfaction was recorded by the DDIT (Inv.), and the legal procedure was followed The cash was seized following due process under law Therefore, this ground is found to be without basis and Dismissed 6. Ground 2: Alleged Lack of Opportunity & Explanation of Seized Cash The assessee has argued that ample opportunity was not given to explain the source of cash. This is factually incorrect. Multiple statutory notices were issued questionnaires and show cause notices on record. Despite this, the assessee failed to furnish u/s 142(1) along with any documentary evidence in support of the explanation that the cash was sourced as a business loan from M/s Touchwood Entertainment Ltd. No confirmation, bank statement, loan agreement, ledger, or even basic cash book entries were furnished at any stage of proceedings. Mere oral submissions or statements without supporting evidence cannot be considered sufficient explanation, especially for a large cash amount of Rs. 25 lakhs. Thus, the assessee was given adequate opportunity but chose not to comply meaningfully. This ground is accord....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n accordance with law, and this ground is Dismissed 10. Ground 6: Charging of Interest u/s 234B The charging of interest u/s 2348 is mandatory under the Income Tax Act for default in payment of advance tax. The assessee, despite having unaccounted cash, failed to declare or offer the income for taxation in his original return and failed to pay appropriate advance tax As the liability arose during the financial year itself, the interest u/s 2348 is automatically attracted and is not discretionary. Hence, this ground is also Dismissed. In view of the facts discussed above the grounds raised by the assessee are found to be devoid of merit and are Dismissed. The assessment completed under Section 144 and the addition of Rs. 25,00.000 under Section 69A of the Act, along with taxation under Section 115BBE and interest under Section 2348, are hereby confirmed Following the above discussion, I uphold the additions made by the AO. Thus, grounds of appeal 1 to 6 are hereby dismissed. ......... 7. Before us, the assessee has challenged the addition made to its income of Rs. 25 lakhs u/s 69A of the Act in the grounds raised, contending that the a....