Surjeet vs ITO Ward 1(4), FBD

PER SHRI M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

The appeal in ITA No.4363/Del/2026 for AY 2012-13, arises out of the order of the Id National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as 'Id. CIT(A)', in short] dated 26.02.2026 against the order of assessment passed u/s 143(3)/147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') dated 18.10.2019 by the Assessing Officer, ITO, Ward-II(4), Faridabad (hereinafter referred to as 'Id. AO').

None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite issuance of notice. Hence, I proceed to dispose of this appeal on hearing of the Id DR and based on the materials available on record.

The ground Nos. 1 to 1.3 raised by the assessee are challenging the validity of reopening u/s 147 of the Act and consequential framing of assessment. The ld CIT(A) had observed that no return of income was filed by the assessee for the year under consideration and no assessment was made earlier for the year under consideration. Hence, in view of the income escaping assessment, reopening stood initiated on the assessee in respect of cash deposits. No evidences were placed on record before me to buttress the said finding of the ld CIT(A). Hence, the ground Nos. 1 to 1.3 raised by the assessee are hereby dismissed.

The ground Nos. 3 and 4 raised by the assessee are general in nature.

Ground Nos. 2.1 to 2.4 raised by the assessee are interconnected with each other challenging the confirmation of addition of Rs. 40 lakhs on account of cash deposits made in the bank account.

I have heard the ld DR and perused the material available on record. The ld AO made an addition on account of Rs. 40 lakhs cash deposited in the saving bank of the assessee on 4 different dates as under:-18/04/2011 9 lakhs 19/04/2011 13 lakhs 20/04/2011 9 lakhs 22/04/2011 9 lakhs

The assessee explained the source of these cash deposits to have emanated out of sale of property made by his father on 13.01.2011. The ld AO disbelieved this contention by stating that the sale happened 3 months prior to the cash deposit date and hence cannot be construed as a available source with the assessee to explain the cash deposit and accordingly proceeded to treat the cash deposit of Rs. 40 lakhs as unexplained money by adding the same to the total income.

It was submitted by the assessee that his father had sold the property for Rs. 56.25 lakhs on 13.01.2011 and another property for Rs. 50 lakhs on 24.06.2011 wherein, the assessee’s share in the property was Rs. 40 lakhs which was given by father to assessee and which in turn was deposited by the assessee in the bank account in April 2011. The ld CIT(A) noted in support of this, no confirmation or affidavit from father was given by the assessee and hence, the genuineness of the transaction could not be established by the assessee. The ld CIT(A) also noted that no return of income was filed by the assessee for the year under consideration. Even the notice u/s 133(6) of the Act issued on 18.03.2019 to explain the cash deposits stood un-complied which triggered the initiation of reopening proceedings u/s 148 of the Act. The ld CIT(A) noted that no evidence has been placed by the assessee to prove the availability of cash source for explaining the cash deposits. Accordingly, the ld CIT(A) upheld the action of the ld AO.

No supporting evidences or contrary evidences were placed on record by the assessee before me to buttress the aforesaid findings of the ld CIT(A). Hence, I deem it fit not to interfere with the said order of the ld CIT(A). Accordingly, ground No. 2.1 to 2.4 raised by the assessee are dismissed.

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed.