Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT
O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, JM:
This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-1, Ghaziabad, dated 16.12.2016, pertaining to the assessment year 2009-10. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
“a) Learned Assessing Officer has considered substantial amount of the cash deposits of Rs. 4,37,000/- as unexplained cash credits under section 68.
Whereas the fact, as was explained to learned CIT(Appeals), that the cash so deposited were from earlier withdrawals and accumulated savings. Assessee is a reputed doctor and was under full time engagement with Narendra Mohan Hospital, Ghaziabad, during period under consideration. She had no other income, apart from that disclosed in the return filed under section 148 and was also considered by learned assessing officer in her order under section 143 rws 147,which was professional fees receipts from the hospital mentioned above. The cash so deposited is from accumulated savings by the way of earlier withdrawals and gift received from husband and children over longer time span, for uncertainties and emergency situations. During the year under consideration, assessee had purchased an immovable property for which she deposited such savings in her saving account. Hence same should not be treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68.. Hence we request the panel members to kindly quash the tax imposed on such cash deposits and do justice to the assessee.”
At the time of hearing no one attended the proceedings on behalf of the assessee. It is transpired from the record that since 27.11.2000 no one is attending the proceedings on behalf of the assessee, despite issue of notices for hearing at the address furnished in form no. 36, Therefore, the appeal was taken up for hearing in the absence of the assessee and is being decided after hearing the learned DR and on the basis of material available on record.
The only effective ground is against sustaining the addition of Rs. 4,37,000/- as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act.
Facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment on the basis of AIR information that assessee had purchased immovable property for Rs. 39,00,000/- on 23.07.2008. In response to 148 of the Act, the assessee filed its e-return of income on 28.11.2016 declaring total income of Rs. 11,13,44/-. The Assessing Officer assessed the assessee’s income u/s 143 read with section 147/148 at Rs. 15,50,440/- by making addition of Rs. 4,37,000/- to the returned income on account of unexplained cash deposits. Aggrieved against this the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(Appeals), who after considering the submissions, affirmed the action of the Assessing Officer and dismissed the assessee’s appeal.
Aggrieved against it the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
Learned DR supported the orders of authorities below and contended that the assessee failed to explain the source of cash deposits except that the cash was deposited out of past savings.
I have heard the learned DR and perused the material available on records.
The case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny assessment on the basis of AIR information regarding transaction of immovable property. During the course of assessment proceedings it was noticed by the Assessing officer that assessee had deposited cash of Rs. 4,37,000/- in two bank accounts.
The explanation regarding this cash deposit was stated to be out of past savings. However, no cash flow statement/ cash book was filed. Even before this Tribunal no such evidence has been filed. Therefore, in the absence of relevant evidence, no interference is called for in the finding of authorities below. The grounds raised are therefore dismissed. 8. Appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in open court on 10th January, 2023.