Dinesh Maheshwari, J. - (1.) BY way of this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ['the Act'], the appellant -assessee seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 16.12.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur ['the Tribunal'] in ITA No. 161/JU/2009 whereby the Tribunal affirmed the judgment and order dated 05.03.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jodhpur ['the CIT(A)'] dismissing the appeal filed against the assessment order dated 03.12.2008 for the assessment year 2006 -2007.
(2.) PUT in brief, the relevant background aspects of the matter are that the appellant -assessee, an individual carrying on business in his proprietorship concern and dealing in Mateera seeds, filed a return declaring income of Rs. 87,360/ -on 08.01.2007. The case was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act, was selected for scrutiny and a notice under Section 143 (2) of the Act was issued to the appellant on 18.06.2007. Despite service, none on behalf of the assessee attended the hearing before the Assessing Officer ['the AO']. The AO gathered that the assessee had deposited in the bank account a sum of Rs. 14,13,350/ - in cash during the relevant financial year and to ascertain the source of this cash, the assessee was given repeated notices under Section 142(1) and 143 (2) of the Act but he failed to submit the requisite explanation. According to the AO, on 19.09.2007, one representative appeared on behalf of the assessee and sought adjournment but did not file any power of attorney. The case was, however, adjourned to 24.09.2007; but even on the stipulated date, none attended on behalf of the assessee nor any reply was filed. The AO pointed out that yet further notices were issued under Section 143 (2) of the Act but the assessee failed to submit reply. The AO further pointed out that finally, on 21.11.2008, the assessee was issued letter No. 2328 whereby he was specifically informed that even after sufficient opportunities, he had not attended on any date and was not co -operating with the Department; and the case was fixed for hearing on 28.11.2008. The AO, after pointing out various notices issued to the assessee and his failure to reply, observed that the assessee failed to submit the source of cash deposited in his account maintained with IDBI Bank, Mumbai. The said amount was taken to be undisclosed income earned from undisclosed sources. The AO completed the assessment taking the said cash deposited in the Bank as undisclosed income of the assessee and issued consequential orders. In appeal before the CIT(A), it was contended on behalf of the appellant -assessee that the assessment order passed under Section 144 of the Act was bad in law and on facts; that notices issued under Sections 142 (1) and 143 (2) of the Act were not properly served; that the assessment order was a non -speaking one; and that addition of income was not justified. The learned CIT(A) found that the assessee could dare not deny specific assertion of the AO regarding service of notices and rejected the contention regarding want of proper service. The learned CIT(A) also found that the AO had elaborately discussed the details of deposit as well as the reasons for treating the same as undisclosed income; and rejected the contentions in that regard too. It was also contended before the CIT(A) that the sources of subsequent deposits were withdrawals from the bank account and no new asset was created; and the peak credit of the earlier year was more than the peak credit during the current year and hence, no further addition was required. The learned CIT(A) rejected such contentions with the observation that despite multiple opportunities, the assessee did not furnish requisite details regarding deposits made in the bank account and no new evidence could be suggested in the appellate proceeding. Taking an overall view of the matter, the learned CIT (A) found no reason to interfere.
(3.) IN further appeal before the Tribunal, again, the validity of service of notices was put to question. It was also contended that the peak credit should have been considered instead of addition of the entire amount of deposit. It was further contended that the CIT (A) ought to have allowed additional evidence. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal found the contentions urged on behalf of the appellant -assessee devoid of substance. The contention regarding want of service was rejected by the Tribunal while observing thus:;