Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES “F”: DELHI
Before: SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI & SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY
Date of Hearing : 12.12.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 04.01.2023 ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, A.M. : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A), Rohtak, dated 26.12.2019 in Appeal No.85/2016-17 relating to the A.Y. 2013-14.
2 ITA.No. 1185/Del./2022
The relevant facts as culled from the material on records are as under :
2.1. Assessee is an individual who had filed his return of income for A.Y. 2013-14 on 06.02.2014 declaring total income of Rs. 2,02,550/- The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and thereafter, assessment was framed under section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961, vide order dated 14.03.2016 and the total income was determined at Rs. 56,76,930/-.
2.2. Aggrieved by the order of the A.O, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who vide order dated 26.12.2019 (Appeal No. 85/2016-17) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal and has raised the following grounds:-
1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the action of Ld. Assessing Officer u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax act 1961 taken on sole basis of AIR information, where reasons are 3 ITA.No. 1185/Del./2022 recorded (a) on the basis of vague and incorrect information; (b) without independent application of mind by the Ld. Assessing Officer; and (c) treating mere cash deposits to be equivalent to income escaping assessment; (d) Not considered the evidences produced in respect of cash sources.
2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 54,63,500/- on account of cash deposits in bank accounts without properly appreciating the facts of the case, as evidences had been produced for cash sources.
3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify and withdraw any ground of appeal
before or during the appellate proceedings.
4. The case file reveals that the appeal filed by the assessee is time barred 796 days and Registry had pointed to assessee various discrepancies in the appeal which was filed by the assessee but the same have not been rectified till date. The case file further reveals that the notice of hearing was sent to the assessee at the address stated by the assessee in Form No 36 through registered post but the same was returned undelivered by postal authorities. The assessee has also not filed any condonation petition seeking
4 ITA.No. 1185/Del./2022 condonation of delay. Further considering the fact that there was no appearance by the assessee, we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex parte qua the assessee.
A.O on the basis of AIR information received by him noticed that assessee had deposited cash aggregating to Rs. 54,63,500/- in his different bank accounts. The assessee was asked to explain the source of cash deposits and submit documentary evidences to support his claim. A.O. noted the despite various opportunities granted by him assessee did not furnish any explanation. A.O. therefore in the absence of any explanation or any evidence regarding the deposit of Rs. 54,63,500/- held it to be made out of undisclosed sources of income and accordingly made its additions.
Aggrieved by the order of the A.O. assessee carried the matter before Ld. CIT(A) who upheld the order of the A.O. while upholding the order of A.O. Ld. CIT(A) has noted the despite various opportunities granted to the assessee during the assessment and remand proceedings
5 ITA.No. 1185/Del./2022 assessee did not produce the complete source of cash deposit nor did he furnish the copy of sale deed. Ld. CIT(A) therefore after considering the order of the A.O. and the remand report dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A) assessee is now before us.
Before us Ld. DR took us the finding of A.O. and CIT(A) and submitted that assessee neither produce the evidence of cash deposits before the A.O., nor in the remand proceedings nor has produced the details before Ld. CIT(A). He further submitted that before the Hon’ble Tribunal assessee has not appeared. He therefore submitted that the order of A.O. be upheld.
We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the material on record. The issue in present ground is with respect to the cash deposits made by the assessee in his bank account. We find that both the lower authorities have recorded a finding that the assessee had not produced the details of cash deposits despite various opportunities
6 ITA.No. 1185/Del./2022 granted to the assessee. Before us also assessee has not pointed to any fallacy in the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) nor has produced any evidence to support his claim. When an appeal is filed before the Tribunal by the assessee himself against the orders of lower authorities, it is expected that that assessee may put forth some documentary evidences in support of his contentions to decide the appeal as it is the duly of the assessee to lead evidence in support for his claim and for the adjudicating authority to decide upon the sustainability of his claim on the basis of evidence led by parties before it. In such a situation we find no reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and thus the grounds of assessee are dismissed.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 04.01.2023.