AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM:
The appeal filed by the assessee is against the order dated 14.08.2025 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon [hereinafter referred to as “the CIT(A)”] u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) arising out of assessment order dated 31.03.2022 for A.Y. 2021-22.
In the appeal, appellant/assessee raised following grounds:
“1.That the appellant denies its liability to be assessed at total income of Rs. 11,45,000/- and accordingly denies its liability to pay tax, and interest demanded thereon.
2.That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. AO has erred in law and on facts in framing the impugned assessment order u/s 144, without assuming jurisdiction as per law, without serving valid notices as per law & without complying with other mandatory condition envisaged under the Act and without serving the mandatory notices u/s 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
3.That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, ld. AO has erred in law and on facts in framing the impugned assessment in violation of Principles of Natural Justice in as much as passing the impugned order by recording incorrect facts and findings.
4.That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of the Ld. AO in invoking the provisions of section 269SS of the I.T.Act, 1961 is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case.”
At the time of hearing, non-appeared on behalf of the assessee on 24.02.2026, 25.03.2026, 25.05.2026 and 25.06.2026.
Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the assessee had not appeared during the assessment proceedings and had changed his version which was found to be unreliable.
From examination of record in light of above submissions, it is crystal clear that as per information from Inspector Incharge Thana-Kotwali Mathura vide his letter dated 11.06.2020 cash of Rs. 11,45,000/- was seized from Shri Shakil Alias Vijay S/O Shri Nizamuddin, Aligarh. On being interrogated, Shri Shakil informed that amount of Rs. 11,45,000/- belonged to Shri Karamvir Bhati assessee. Despite notices, assessee failed to submit his version. So, addition of Rs. 11,45,000/- was made against the assessee. In appeal, assessee before Ld. CIT(A), assessee claimed amount of Rs. 11,45,000/- belonged to his family having earned from agriculture produced accumulated for several years. The explanations were rejected by the Ld. CIT(A). In absence of any supporting material, the grounds of appeal being devoid of merit are untenable.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed