vk;djvihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqjU;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Mk

0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf;dlnL; ,oJa hjkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkb]Z ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihyl-a@ITA No. 393/JPR/2024 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2011-12 ShriVijay Singh cuke The ITO Village & Post Office: SALALPUR Vs. Ward -1 (5)

Tijara, Distt: Alwar 301 019 (Raj) Alwar LFkk;hys[kk l-a@thvkbZvkjla-@PAN/GIR No.: CRQPS 8442F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Deepak Sharma, CA (Thru:VC) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 07/10/2025 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 28 /10/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi[ for short CIT(A)] dated 13.05.2022 for the assessment year 2011-12 raising therein following grounds of appeal.

‘’1. The impugned assessment order dated 22-11-2018 passed u/s 147/144 is bad in low and on facts of the case, for want of jurisdiction and various other reasons and hence the same deserves to be fully quashed.

2. Rs. 6,00,000/-:- The Id. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs. 6,00,000/- 69A on account of cash deposited in Bank made by the AO The addition so made and confirmed being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, kindly be allowed in full

3. Rs. 30.911/-:- The Id. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs. 30,911/- on account of interest received in Bank made by the AO. The addition so made and confirmed being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, kindly be allowed in full

4. The Id. AO erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in charging interest u/s 234B& 234C. The appellant totally denies it liability of charging of any such interest. The interest, so charged, being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, kindly be deleted in full.’’

2.1 Apropos grounds of appeal of the assessee, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order in the case of the assessee by holding that nothing new or any evidence was furnished by the assessee during appellate proceedings and thus he dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing at para 8 to para 11 of his order as under:-

Findings

5. As per the details available on record, vide order dated 22.11.2018, the demand of the appellant for the A.Y. 2011-12 was created u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the I.T. Act, 1961 by making addition u/s 69A of the I.T Act, 1961.

6. Assessment u/s 147/144 of the I.T. Act, 1961 in case of the appellant for the A.Y. 2011-12 was completed on 22.11.2018 by making addition of Rs. 6,30,910/-

as income by invoking section 69A of the I.T Act, 1961.

7. Appellant has said the amount of Rs.6,00,000/- was withdrawn from his account via multiple transactions and deposited again in the same bank account but could not furnish any proof to establish the same.

8. Appellant has received Rs.30,911/- as interest from bank which was added to the net Income.

9. Appellant has claimed deduction u/s Section 80C of the I.T Act, 1961 for the life insurance but as the appellant has not filed the return for the year concerned.

Hence, the claim on deduction by the assessee does not stand.

10. Therefore, after going through the Assessment order and considering all the facts on record, the A.O. has rightfully made the addition of Rs. 6,30,910/- u/s 69A of the I.T Act, 1961 to the income and arriving at tax payable Rs. 1,73,590/-. Nothing new or any evidence was furnished by the assessee during appellate proceedings also.

11. Considering the above mentioned facts the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed.’'

2.2 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee prayed that the assessee may be provided one mo