Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘I(2
Before: MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI
ORDER
PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 17/01/2019 passed by CIT(A)- Rohtak, for Assessment Year 2009-10.
The grounds of appeal
are as under:- “1. The assessment order passed by the AO is bad in law and fact for want of jurisdiction under facts and circumstances of the appeal.
2. The appellant humbly reiterates all the facts and grounds of appeal raised before the Ld CIT (Appeals). The CIT(A) has blindly confirmed the Assessment Order.
3. The CIT (A) has committed a mistake on facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per provision and scheme of the Act. The CIT (A) has not considered legal and factually that the reasons recorded u/s 148 has no relevancy with material available on the record. The reasons recorded under Sec 148 are different from material available on record. There is no vital link between reasons and evidence.
4. The CIT (A) has committed a mistake by treating the business gross receipts as appellant's income. It is contrary to provisions and scheme of the Act regarding assessing income from business.
5. That CIT (A) has committed a mistake in respect of peak cash balance theory under the facts and circumstances of the appeal. The peak cash balance theory has no application in the present appeal. That AO and CIT(A) has not given due weight to the cash flow submitted before them.
6. That it is well known and standard practice of the income tax department (supported by CBDT Circulars) the Department Officers are not supposed to act as Executive or Judicial Official only but to act as both. That they are supposed to help and inform the taxpayer about their rights and liabilities well within in advance. They should not take disadvantages of the assessee. That all grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other.”
3. As per information available on record, the assessee made deposit of cash amounting to Rs 2,00,000/- and made payments through credit card amounting to Rs 4,00,000/- during the F.Y. 2008-09 relevant to the A.Y. 2009- 10. Assessee has not filed return of income. Therefore, source of deposit of cash made in bank and payment made through credit card remained unexplained. During the assessment proceedings, it was seen that the assessee had deposited Rs. 19,78,500/- in his saving bank account. As he could not substantiate the source of cash deposit, an addition of Rs 6,44,500/- is made by the Assessing Officer on account of cash deposits as unexplained money u/s 69A.
Being aggrieved by the Assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
None appeared on behalf of the assessee and there is no adjournment application on behalf of the assessee. The notice has been served to the assessee. Therefore, we are taking up the submissions of the assessee before the CIT(A) as well as before the Assessing Officer.
The Ld. DR relied upon the assessment order, and the order of the CIT(A).
We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the material available on record. The assessee has not appeared before the CIT(A) despite giving proper opportunity but submitted the reply upon which the CIT(A) has taken cognizance and held that there is no documentary evidence from 18 parties in respect of cash receipts given by the assessee. Thus, the CIT(A) has given the detailed reason while confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). The appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
In result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on this 04TH Day of May, 2020.