AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017 arises against the Commissioner of Income T ax(Appeals)/National Facele ss Appeal Centre (for short, ‘CIT(A)/NFAC’), Delhi’s DIN & order No . ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1084331225(1), involving proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 o f the Income T ax Act, 1961; hereinafter referred to as, “the Act”.
Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He has accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
The Revenue vehemently submits during the course of hearing that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC has erred in law and on facts in reversing the Assessing Officer’s action in making section 69C unexplained cash withdrawals addition of Rs. 2,80,95,000/- in his bank account; in assessment order dated 30.03.2022; vide following detailed discussion:
“I have gone through the facts of the case. The appellant made no compliance at the assessment stage. He had also made no compliance during the course of appellate proceedings. No written submission was filed except for a statement of facts at sl.no 11 of form no. 35. The same has been reproduced at section 2(a) of this appellate order. The appellant has submitted that the bank account transactions were forged and that an FIR was filed in the cyber-crime cell. In short, the appellant denied of having made any of the transactions in the bank account standing in his name, which is inadmissible. The appellant has raised a total of eleven grounds. It has been contended that reopening of assessment of the basis of AIR information and without application of mind has rendered the assessment invalid. It was also contended that the appellant was not supplied with the reasons for reopening and additions have been arbitrarily made in the assessment order. I find that the case of the appellant was reopened on the basis of credible information available with the department. The information obtained from the portal was examined by the AO and he was satisfied that there was tangible material on the basis of which the assessment could be reopened. Therefore, although the reopening of assessment was made primarily on the basis of the said information, the AO applied his mind and it is not a fact that he simply acted on borrowed information without application of mind. It has been decided by various Courts that it would not be appropriate to go into sufficiency of reasons recorded by the AO and if it is found that the AO had tangible materials at his command to form a bona fide belief of income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, there would be no interference with the AO proceeding further with the reassessment. I find that the appellant did not, on a single instant, complied with the statutory notices issued u/s 148 and 142(1). He has not adduced any evidence that he ever raised the issue that reason for reopening was not provided to him as asked for. The appellant has also not uploaded copies of the FIR in respect of the cyber-crime issue mentioned by him. Both at the assessment and appellate stages, he has remained silent and rather than explaining facts, he has raised multiple technical grounds which are irrelevant and without substance.
On the other hand, the AO has made the additions relying on whatever information was available with him. Having said that, it is also seen that the AO has not acted prudently while making addition for the withdrawal of Rs.2,80,95,000/- u/s 69C, when he has already made addition on account of deposits of Rs.1,63,92,650/- u/s 68 in respect of the deposits in the same bank account. Therefore, in my considered opinion, while the addition of Rs. 1,63,92,650/- u/s 68 of the Act is sustainable in the facts of the case, the addition on account of withdrawal from the same bank account of Rs.2,80,95,000/- u/s 69C is not sustainable. The AO is directed to delete the addition of Rs. 2,80,95,000/- made u/s 69C. As regards addition of Rs. 3,44,822/- made u/s 69C for credit cards payments through Citi Bank, no explanation has been brought on record and, as such, the addition is confirmed.”
We hardly see any reason to express our concurrence with assessee’s sole substantive ground as to what all the learned CIT(A) has done is to delete the impugned addition amounting to Rs. 2,80,95,000/- which represents the withdrawals only on the one hand and whereas he has already confirmed the cash deposits of Rs. 1,63,92,650/- in the assessee’s case. We are of the considered view in this factual backdrop that such an instance of double addition has rightly been reversed in the learned CIT(A)/NFAC lower appellate discussion which does not warrant any interference on our part. The Revenue fails in its instant sole substantive ground therefore.
This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.