ASIF ALI SIDDIQUI,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-32(3), NEW DELHI

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the CIT(A)-11, New Delhi dated 28.10.2019 pertaining to A.Y. 2011-12.

The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee is that the CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs.06 lacs, this regarding the submissions made by the assessee.

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that during the course of the scrutiny assessment proceedings the AO was seized with the information of cash deposit of Rs.2284500/- in the bank account with Canara Bank. Assessee was asked to explain the source of cash deposit. On receiving no plausible reply the AO made the addition of Rs.2284500/-. Proceeding further the AO noticed that as per Form No. 26AS the assessee has received professional technical receipts of Rs.202500/-from Indian Council of Social Science and Research during the year under consideration. Since this income was not reflected in the return of income and infact the assessee has not filed any return of income for the year under consideration. The AO made the addition of Rs.202500/- making total addition of Rs.2487000/-.

Assessee strongly agitated the matter before the CIT(A) and contended that the AO has not considered the returned income as per the return filed pursuant to the notice u/s. 148 of the Act. It was explained to the CIT(A) that the assessee was earlier working with Indian Council of Social Science and Research, Government of India and after retirement has been practicising as Doctor from which he received cash of Rs.1152635/-on account of private practice. The CIT(A) was convinced with this reply of the assessee and deleted the addition to the extent of Rs.1152635/-. The CIT(A) further deleted Rs.1 lac considering it to be out of past saving and gifts. Addition to the extent of Rs.1352635/- was deleted and the balance amount of Rs.931865/- was confirmed. 5. Before me the counsel reiterated what has been stated before the CIT(A). It is the say of the counsel that the CIT(A) erred in accepting only Rs. 1 lac out of past savings when the assessee is practicing since last 25 years. The counsel further pointed out that Rs.6 lacs were received as gift from friends and relatives which have not been accepted by the CIT(A). The DR strongly supported the order of the CIT(A). 6. I have given a thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below. The assessee was earlier employed with the Government of India working with Indian Council of Social Science & Research. Yet the Counsel pleaded the ignorance of the assessee in so far as the income tax act is concerned. By any stretch of imagination this contention cannot be accepted. Further I find that the first appellate authority has accepted the profession receipts as the source of cash deposit to the extent of Rs.1152635/-and further accepted Rs. 1 lacs out of past savings and petty gifts.

I find that the order of the CIT(A) is very judicious on the facts of the case in hand and, therefore, I decline to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A).

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 04.10.2021.