BALADEB MOHAPATRA,JAGATSINGHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, PARADEEP

PDF · subscribers
ITA 344/CTK/2016Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack30 July 2020AY 2011-127 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that it cannot review its own decisions unless there is a mistake apparent from the record. The assessee failed to satisfactorily explain the sources of cash deposits, and the onus was on the assessee to discharge this duty.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was previously dismissed by the ITAT. The High Court directed the ITAT to decide a review petition, which led to the appeal being restored. The assessee argued that their submissions were not considered in the earlier order.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee provided satisfactory explanation for cash deposits and whether the Tribunal failed to consider the assessee's submissions in its earlier order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK

Before: SHRI C.M. GARG, JM & SHRI L.P. SAHU, AM

Hearing: 17/07/2020Pronounced: 31/07/2020

per the provisions of Income Tax Act, which has not been done so by the assessee in the present case in hand. There is no evidence produced by the assessee before us as to whether any effort has been taken by the assessee for taking information from the ATIIL Ltd. before us.

10.

Further, we noted from the records submitted before us as well as from the submissions of the assessee, if the assessee was unable to substantiate the deposits in the account on whose behalf transaction was made through DD to the ATIIL. For this reason, the assessee would have called for information from the company or if he was helpless from both the sides i.e. the investors as well as from the company (ATIIL Ltd), then in such circumstances, he could have approached to the revenue authorities for obtaining support because the revenue authorities have huge powers to call for the information as provided in the Income Tax Act. Had the complete address of the investors/creditors/depositors been provided by the assessee, the revenue authorities could have taken effort for investigation on suo motu, however, the assessee has simply mentioned the name of the creditors in the list. Thus, we upheld the action of both the authorities below and after considering the submissions of both the sides, we sustain our earlier decision taken vide order dated 31.08.2017.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal of the assessee.

11.

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed.

1.

Order pronounced in the open court on 31/07/ 2020. Sd/- Sd/- (C.M.GARG) (L.P.SAHU) न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER ऱेखा सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER कटक Cuttack; ददनाांक Dated 31/07/2020 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S. आदेश की प्रनिलऱपप अग्रेपषि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अऩीलाथी / The Appellant- 1. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent- 2. आयकि आयुक्त(अऩील) / The CIT(A), 3. आयकि आयुक्त / CIT 4. ववभागीय प्रनतननधध, आयकि अऩीलीय अधधकिण, कटक / DR, ITAT, 5. Cuttack गार्ा पाईल / Guard file. 6. सत्यावऩत प्रनत //True Copy// आदेशािुसार/ BY ORDER,

(Senior Private Secretary) आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, कटक/ITAT, Cuttack

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →