Shyam Sunder Sharma vs ACIT

This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 13.11.2019 of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), New Delhi for the assessment year 2010-11.

When the appeal was called out for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Even, there is no application on record seeking adjournment. On perusal of record, it is observed, though, the appeal was fixed on a number of occasions earlier, however, assessee had neither responded to the notices of hearing issued repeatedly nor has appeared even on a single occasion. These facts show complete apathy and lack of interest of the assessee in pursuing the present appeal, since, multiple opportunities have been extended to the assessee, which it has failed to avail, I proceed to dispose off the appeal ex parte qua the assessee after hearing the learned Departmental Representative and based on materials available on record.

The basic issue which is under challenge in the present appeal is addition of Rs.9,53,000/- under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Briefly the facts are, the assessee is a resident individual. For the assessment year under dispute, assessee did not file any return of income voluntarily. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer received information that in the year under consideration, the assessee had received rental income of Rs.6,45,000/-. Based on such information the Assessing Officer formed an opinion that income assessable to tax has escaped assessment. Accordingly, he reopened the assessment under section 147 of the act by issuing a notice under section 148 of the Act. As observed by the Assessing Officer, the assessee did not fully comply with the notices issued under section 142(1) of the Act. Therefore, the Assessing Officer proceeded to complete the assessment to the best of his judgment by invoking the provisions of Section 144 of the Act. While doing so, he issued notice under section 133(6) of the Act to Bank of Baroda, seeking statement of account of the assessee. On verifying the bank statement he found various deposits in the bank account. Additionally, on examining Form 26AS, he noticed that in the year under consideration the assessee had received rental income of Rs.6,45,000/- from two tenants. Alleging that the assessee has not offered the rental income and could not explain the source of deposits in the bank account, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.23,48,000/- and assessed it as income of the assessee. Assessee contested the aforesaid addition before learned Commissioner (Appeals).

After considering the submissions of the assessee and examining the evidences, learned Commissioner (Appeals) partly deleted the addition made with reference to the unexplained deposits in the bank account. As regards the addition of rental income, learned Commissioner (Appeals), though, upheld the addition, however, he directed the Assessing Officer to allow statutory deduction from rental income and also to give credit for TDS. Thus, learned Commissioner (Appeals) granted partial relief to the assessee.

I have considered the submissions of learned Departmental Representative and perused materials on record.

In course of assessment proceeding, as alleged by the Assessing Officer, the assessee did not comply with a number of queries raised by the Assessing Officer and did not file supporting evidence to explain the source of deposits made in the bank statement. Even, in respect of rental income complete information was not furnished. However, before the First Appellate Authority the assessee submitted certain evidences to partially explain the source of deposits in the bank statement. After getting the evidences verified by the Assessing Officer learned Commissioner (Appeals) granted relief to the assessee to the extent, the assessee was able to explain the source of deposits in the bank account. I find the aforesaid decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals) to be based on facts and material placed before him. The assessee has not furnished any other evidence or material before me to establish the source of deposits in the bank account. That being the case, no interference with the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals) is called for. As regards the rental income, admittedly, as per the material available on record the assessee had received rental income from two parties. Whereas, the assessee has not offered them to tax. That being the factual position emerging on record, the Assessing Officer was justified in bringing to tax the rental income. The deficiency in the order of the Assessing Officer due to non grant of statutory deduction of repairs and maintenance under section 24 of the Act has been removed by learned Commissioner (Appeals).

In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any reason to interfere with the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals) on the issue. As regards, the allegation of the assessee that learned Commissioner (Appeals) has violated the norms of natural justice, I am not convinced.

Perusal of the impugned order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) would reveal that he has granted full opportunity to the assessee to explain its case. In fact, the evidences furnished by the assessee were forwarded to the Assessing Officer and after taking note of the remand report, submissions of the assessee and evidences placed on record, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has decided the appeal. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the allegation of the assessee that rules of natural justice has been violated. Accordingly, grounds are dismissed.

In the result, appeal is dismissed.