Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI “SMC” BENCH: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT
ORDER
PER KUL BHARAT, JM :
The present appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2011-12 is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-11, New Delhi dated 25.11.2019. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. “That the notice issued u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, (‘Act’) is illegal, bad in law, without jurisdiction. 1.1. That the reasons have been recorded by the AO without application of mind and without following any material available with him, Hence bad in law. 1.2. That the approval given by the competent authority is bad in law as the same is stereotyped and does not state what material/ record has been followed by the competent authority before giving approval. 1.3. That no notice u/s 148 was duly served upon the assessee at any stage.
Grounds on Merits of Additions 2.1. That the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 7,36,000/-out of addition of Rs. 8,57,335/- made by the Assessing Officer. 2.2. That the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the affidavits filed by the Assessee without any reason specified by her and without following the due procedure. 3. That all the grounds of appeal are without prejudice and are mutually exclusive to each other.
4. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and/or delete any of the above grounds of appeal at or before the rime of hearing.”
No one appeared on behalf of the assessee when the appeal was called for hearing. It is seen from the record that from the various dates of hearing, no one is attended the proceedings on behalf of the assessee. Notice sent through speed post is returned back unserved with remark “no such person at this address”. The assessee has not provided any new address to the Registry. Therefore, the appeal is taken up for hearing in the absence of the assessee.
FACTS OF THE CASE 3. Facts giving rise to the present appeal are that in this case, the assessment was re-opened on the basis of the cash deposited into the bank accounts amounting to Rs.6,70,000/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee filed his reply on the e-portal of the Department. Before the Assessing Officer (“AO”), the case of the assessee was that the money was deposited out of the sale consideration of the land sold by his father. However, the AO treated the same as unexplained income and made an addition of Rs.8,57,335/-.
Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A), who after considering the submissions of the assessee, partly allowed the appeal.
Aggrieved against the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal.
The only effective ground of assessee’s appeal is against the confirming of addition of Rs.7,36,000/- out of addition of Rs.8,57,335/-.
On the contrary, Ld. Sr. DR heavily relied upon the assessment order and submitted that the assessee failed to explain the source of cash deposited in the bank account. He submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has given part relief to the assessee. The decision of the Ld.CIT(A) is reasonable and justified under the facts of the present case.
7A. I have heard contention of the Ld. Sr. DR and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The Ld. CIT(A) has decided the issue in para 6.2 of the order by observing as under:-
6.2. “Ground No.4 pertains to addition of Rs.8,57,335/-. During the appellant had deposited cash amounting to Rs.8,57,335/- in his bank account. Appellant submitted before AO that the cash deposits were out of land sold on 18.06.2013 by his father. AO made the addition of Rs.8,57,335/- for want of documentary evidence to substantiate assessee’s claim. During the course of appellant proceedings, appellant has submitted that the cash deposits in the bank account are to the tune of Rs.8,22,000/- whereas AO has wrongly taken the amount at Rs.8,57,335/-. On examination of the bank account it is seen that these is cash deposit of Rs.8,39,000/- and therefore, the addition is restricted to Rs.8,39,000/- and the addition of Rs.18,335/- being infructuous is deleted. Further, it has been submitted by appellant that he has received the amount from his father on account of sale of his land as he got advance for land. On careful perusal of appellant’s claim, it is noted that the deposits in the bank account of appellant were made during A.Y. 2011-12 whereas the land was sold on 18.06.2013 i.e. during A.Y 2014-15. It is also noted that appellant has not submitted any documentary evidence to establish his claim that he received the money from his father on account of advance money for sale of land. From the perusal of the sale deed, it is seen that land has been sold on 18.06.2013 by his father, Sh. Om Prakash Singh. Appellant claims that he has received the amount from sale of land by his father. However, appellant has not submitted any evidence that the amounts received on sale of land was received by him neither there is any evidence of transfer of money as all the transactions were claimed to have been done in cash. The affidavit of Sh.Rakesh Kumar and Sh. Naresh Kumar dated 04.11.2019 is an afterthought and in any case, does not explain the case of appellant. Therefore, there is no basis in the claim of appellant. However, it is also noted that appellant has withdrawn the amounts in cash before the next cash deposit made by him in his bank account. Appellant has claimed that the cash deposits made by him in his bank account. Appellant has claimed that the cash deposits after the withdrawal, is out of the cash withdrawal made by him. On careful perusal, It is noted that amount of Rs.1,03,000/- appears to be cash withdrawal prior to making of cash deposits by appellant. Therefore, in view of the fact and circumstances of the case, the disallowance is restricted to Rs.7,36,000/- and balance amount of Rs.1,21,335/0 is deleted. Accordingly, Ground No.4 is partly allowed.”
The above finding of Ld.CIT(A) is not rebutted by the assessee by placing any contrary material on record. The assessee failed to explain the source of cash deposited in the bank account. In the absence of the credible explanation, I do not see any reason to interfere in the finding of Ld.CIT(A), the same is hereby affirmed. Thus, ground raised by the assessee is dismissed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 28th April, 2022.