RAVINDER KUMAR,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 59(4), NEW DELHI

This appeal by Assessee has been directed against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A)-19, New Delhi, Dated 30.11.2018, for the A.Y. 2010-2011, challenging the addition of Rs.15,86,000/- on account of income from unexplained sources under section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961.

received through NMS cycle. On perusal of ITS data for the A.Y. 2010-11, A.O. noted that the assessee company had deposited cash of Rs.15,86,000/- in his bank account with the Khatri Co-Op (U) Bank Ltd. during the assessment year under appeal. The case of the assessee was reopened under section 147 of the I.T. Act. Statutory notices were issued to the assessee. However, none have been attended to by the assessee. Subsequently, assessee has filed copy of the return of income for the assessment year under appeal declaring income of Rs.1,26,999/- filed on 08.12.2017 in response to notice issued under section 148 of the Act.

Thereafter, assessee did not appear before A.O. and no explanation have been filed. The A.O. in the absence of any cooperation from the side of the assessee passed the re- assessment order and made addition of Rs.15,86,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposit in Bank Account under section 68 of the I.T. Act.

2.1. The addition was challenged before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee submitted that he was running general store shop and cash deposit in the bank account was from 3 ITA.No.196/Del./2019 Shri Ravinder Kumar, Delhi. sales made. The assessee has no other income. The cash has been deposited in the Bank Account regularly in 2-3 days gap. The Ld. CIT(A) found that whatever was submitted by assessee has not been substantiated through any evidence on record. Therefore, addition was confirmed.

authorities below that assessee was doing any business and cash have been deposited out of sale proceeds. No copy of the purchase bills have been produced by assessee before any authority. Therefore, addition may be confirmed.

The assessee failed to explain nature and source of cash deposit in his Bank Account before the authorities below.

The assessee for the first time contended before the Ld. CIT(A) that he is running a general store shop and cash has been deposited out of the sales made. The explanation of assessee is not supported any documentary evidences.

Further, when assessee made purchases out of the same Bank Account as per the contention of Learned Counsel for the Assessee through Banking channel, assessee could have produce purchase bills before the authorities below to show that it was in fact the business transaction of assessee.

5 ITA.No.196/Del./2019 Shri Ravinder Kumar, Delhi.

However, assessee did not produce any evidence before the authorities below. Same is the position before the Tribunal that assessee did not produce any purchase bills to show that purchases were made through banking channel out of the same Bank account in which cash have been deposited.

Therefore, there were no justification even to remand the matter back to the file of A.O. as is argued by the Learned Counsel for the Assessee. In the absence of any evidence on record, I do not find any justification to interfere with the Orders of the authorities below and dismiss the appeal of assessee.

Order pronounced in the open Court.