Facts of the Case

The assessee, Sunil Kumar, was subjected to assessment proceedings after information was received that he had deposited cash of Rs. 11,95,500 during the demonetization period. A notice under Section 142(1) was issued requiring filing of return, but the assessee did not comply. Subsequent notices, including show-cause notices proposing assessment under Section 144, also remained uncomplied.

The Assessing Officer completed the assessment to the best of his judgment under Section 144. He observed that the assessee had deposited Rs. 13,82,000 in specified bank notes during demonetization and added the same as income due to absence of explanation. Additionally, Rs. 5,32,313 was found credited in the bank account during the year, out of which Rs. 42,586 (8%) was added as income.

Before the CIT(A), the assessee contended that he had commenced a retail business in October 2016 dealing in seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, and agricultural equipment. Total business receipts were Rs. 17,20,844 and profits under Section 44AD were below taxable limits. It was asserted that the cash deposits represented business receipts and that no large lump-sum deposits were made. Non-compliance before the AO was attributed to failure of the engaged counsel.

The CIT(A) issued three notices but, finding inadequate response and adjournment requests, dismissed the appeal for lack of pursuit and confirmed the additions.

 

Issues Involved

  1. Whether additions based on demonetization cash deposits under a best-judgment assessment were justified without considering business receipts explanation.
  2. Whether dismissal of appeal for non-prosecution without adequate opportunity was valid.
  3. Whether principles of natural justice were violated.

 

Petitioner’s Arguments (Assessee)

  • The cash deposits were business receipts from newly started retail trade and profits were below taxable limits under Section 44AD.
  • Deposits were made in small amounts over time, indicating business turnover rather than unexplained income.
  • Failure to respond during assessment proceedings was due to negligence of counsel.
  • The assessee was a first-time taxpayer unfamiliar with proceedings and dependent on professional assistance.
  • Adequate opportunity was not provided by appellate authority.

 

Respondent’s Arguments (Revenue)

  • The assessee repeatedly failed to comply with statutory notices issued by the Assessing Officer.
  • The burden of proof to explain cash deposits lay on the assessee.
  • The CIT(A) provided sufficient opportunities and was justified in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution.

 

Court Order / Findings (ITAT Allahabad)

  • The CIT(A) issued notices over a long period but did not grant effective opportunity to the assessee.
  • The first notice allowed very limited time for compliance, and after a gap of nearly three years, subsequent notices were issued in quick succession.
  • The assessee had requested adjournment in response to the last notice, which was not granted.
  • Considering that the appeal arose from an ex-parte assessment and the assessee was a first-time taxpayer relying on counsel, denial of adjournment resulted in lack of proper opportunity.

Accordingly, the Tribunal held that principles of natural justice were not adequately followed. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh decision on merits after providing due opportunity to the assessee to present his case.

Ground relating to lack of opportunity was allowed, while other grounds were treated as infructuous.

 

Important Clarification

  • The Tribunal did not adjudicate the merits of additions relating to cash deposits.
  • The case was remanded solely due to inadequate opportunity and violation of natural justice.
  • Authorities must provide meaningful opportunity, especially where assessment is ex-parte.
  • Assessees must also actively pursue appeals and comply with notices to avoid adverse inference.

Link to download the order - https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1771231840_SUNILKUMARETAHVS.INCOMETAXOFFICERWARD443KASGANJ.pdf  



 Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.