Top Stories Cash Deposits during Demonetization: ITAT confirms Addition of ₹1.10 Cr u/s 69A and 115BBE of Income Tax Act [Read Order] The tribunal emphasised that procedural compliance, like applying for the condonation of delay, is essential By Eeva Mary Sanil – On January 23, 2025 9:08 pm – 2 mins read The Patna bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) in the case of Mr Dharmendra Kumar confirmed the addition made by the assessing officer ( AO ) as unexplained income under Section 69A read with Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act. The assessee moved the appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)[CIT(A)]. The case originated during the demonetisation period, where the AO observed cash deposits worth ₹1.10 Cr in multiple bank accounts belonging to the assessee, Dharmendra Kumar. The AO had initiated proceedings under Sections 147,142(1), and 148 of the Income Tax after discovering unexplained cash deposits through the Asset Information Management System (AIMS) database and the ITBA modules. Comprehensive Guide of Law and Procedure for Filing of Income Tax Appeals, Click Here

Multiple notices were issued to the assessee, but he failed to file an income return or explain the deposits. Due to such non-compliance, the AO treated the entire amount as unexplained cash deposits. Aggrieved by the AO’s decision, the assessee approached the CIT(A), where after filing the appeal, the assessee further failed to appear or submit any evidence despite being given adequate opportunities. The CIT(A) upheld the AO’s order, confirming adding ₹1.10 Cr as unexplained income. The assessee then filed an appeal with a delay of 149 days before the ITAT without submitting an application for condonation of delay or without providing any justification for such delay. The tribunal had issued multiple notices for hearing, all unanswered, and the assessee failed to appear or provide representation.

The revenue representative stated that the assessee is a habitual defaulter, which is reflected in the orders of the authorities before. He asserted that sufficient opportunities had already been provided to the assessee, but the assessee failed to respond. Comprehensive Guide of Law and Procedure for Filing of Income Tax Appeals, Click Here Considering the situations at hand, the tribunal emphasised that procedural compliance, like applying for the condonation of delay, is essential. Without such an application, the delay could not be condoned. The tribunal observed that repeated opportunities had been provided to the assessee, who failed to utilise them during proceedings. Considering the lack of evidence or explanation for the cash deposits, the two-member bench consisting of Sanjay Awasthi (Accountant Member) and Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial Member) confirmed the addition of ₹1.10 Cr as unexplained income under Section 69A, which is read with Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act. As a result, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed.