ABIDI YAHIYA SYED,GURUGRAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), GURUGRAM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1650/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 August 2022AY 2014-154 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the source of cash deposits was claimed as gifts, but not substantiated. The CIT(A) had factually considered the difference in receipts and restricted the addition. The Tribunal found no reason to modify the CIT(A)'s findings.

What were the facts?

The assessee's return was selected for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer (AO) noticed unexplained cash deposits and a mismatch between total receipts in the Profit and Loss account and Form 26AS. The AO made additions for both discrepancies.

What were the issues?

Whether the additions made by the AO on account of unexplained cash deposits and mismatch in receipts were justified. Whether the CIT(A)'s order confirming part of the additions and restricting others was correct.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI

Before: SH. N. K. BILLAIYA & MS. ASTHA CHANDRA

Hearing: 24/08/2022Pronounced: 24/08/2022

This appeal filed by the assessee is preferred against the order of the CIT(A)-2, Gurgaon dated 28.12.2018 for A.Y.2014-15.

2.

The grievance of the assessee read as under :-

3.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee inspite of repetitive notices, therefore, we decided to proceed exparte. The DR was heard at length. Case records carefully perused.

4.

The return of income of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment under CASS.

5.

During the course of the scrutiny assessment proceedings the AO noticed that certain cash deposits were recorded in the AIR, the details of which are as under :-

6.

The assessee was asked to explain the source of cash deposited in bank account. On receiving no plausible reply the AO made the addition of Rs.4640000/-. Proceeding further the AO found that there is a mismatch of total receipts shown in the Profit and Loss account and the total receipts as per form 26AS. The assessee was asked to submit a reason for the same. On receiving no plausible reply the AO made the addition of Rs.4484865/-. Assessee raised the objections before the CIT(A). We find that the proceeding before the CIT(A) remained unattended though written submissions alongwith additional evidences were filed and on the basis of the submissions made by the assessee the CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs.4640000/- and restricted the addition on account of differences in receipts as per form No.26AS to the extent of Rs.2485623/-.

7.

We find that the source of cash deposit was explained to be gifts though details to the satisfaction of the AO were not furnished nor it was furnished before the CIT(A). In so far as the difference in the total receipts as per form No.26AS and as per Profit and Loss account is concerned we find that the CIT(A) has considered the grievance of the assessee factually and restricted the disallowance to Rs.2485263/-. A careful analysis and finding of the CIT(A) show that it does not require any modification. We, therefore, confirme the findings of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

9.

Decision announced in the open court in the presence of both the parties on 24.08.2022.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →