MANISH MALIK,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-43(5), NEW DELHI
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI
SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No.823/Del/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Manish Malik, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Flat No. B-221, DABS Ward-43(5), CGHS Ltd., Plot No. 6C, New Delhi Dwarka Sector-23, New Delhi-1100 75 PAN :AJYPM9837C (Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by Shri P.C. Yadav, CA Respondent by Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Date of hearing 02.08.2022 Date of pronouncement 31.10.2022
ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated
12.12.2019 of learned Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals)-15,
Delhi pertaining to assessment year 2013-14.
The dispute in the present appeal is confined to the addition
of Rs.17,80,000 as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of
the Income-Tax Act, 1961.
2 ITA No. 823/Del./2020
Briefly, the facts are, the assessee is a resident individual.
For the assessment year under dispute, assessee filed his return
of income on 31.03.2015 declaring income of Rs.9,10,730.
In course of assessment proceedings, while verifying at the
details available on record, the Assessing Officer noticed that in
the year under consideration, the assessee had deposited cash
amounting to Rs.17,80,000 in his saving bank account.
When the assessee was called upon to explain the source of
cash deposits, he explained that he is a contractor and engaged
in construction work and the cash deposited in the bank account
represents the amount received towards contract work. The
Assessing Officer, however, was not convinced with the
submissions of the assessee and added back the amount of
Rs.17,80,000 as unexplained cash credit. The addition so made
was also confirmed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals).
I have considered rival submissions and perused the
material available on record.
On perusal of return of income filed by the assessee for the
impugned assessment year as well as other material placed on
record, it is noticed that the assessee is a small time contractor
engaged in repair work of buildings. On perusal of the profit and
3 ITA No. 823/Del./2020
loss account for the assessment year under consideration, it is
observed that in the year under consideration, the assessee had
shown receipts from construction work at Rs.27,82,500. Further,
on perusal of the details of contract receipts as well as other
receipts, it appears that during the year under consideration,
assessee had total receipts of about Rs.28,00,000, whereas the
cash deposits are to the tune of Rs.17,80,000. It is further
relevant to observe, in response to a query raised by the
Assessing Officer, the assessee had specifically furnished this
information before the Assessing Officer. Thus, in my view,
assessee had properly explained the source of cash deposits
through cogent evidences. That being the factual position
emerging on record, I do not find any reason to sustain the
addition. Accordingly, the addition of Rs.17,80,000 is hereby
deleted.
In the result, the appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 31st October, 2022. Sd/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 31st October, 2022. Mohan Lal
4 ITA No. 823/Del./2020
