NAVEEN KUMAR,GOHANA vs. ITO, WARD-32(2), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1179/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 August 2019AY 2010-115 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 condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's illness. However, on merits, it found no reason to interfere as the assessee failed to provide any evidence to explain the source of cash deposits, confirming the addition made by the AO.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment based on AIR information regarding cash deposits of Rs. 17,94,000/- in the assessee's savings bank account. The assessee failed to provide any explanation or documentary evidence for these deposits despite multiple opportunities from both the AO and the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the addition on account of unexplained cash deposits is justified when the assessee fails to provide any evidence to substantiate the source of such deposits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES “SMC”: DELHI

Before: SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI

Hearing: 17.07.2019Pronounced: 01.08.2019

This appeal by assessee has been directed against the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals)-11, New Delhi dated 07.09.2018 for AY 2010-11.

2.

Briefly the facts of the case are that AO had reopened the assessment u/s 147 of the Act on the basis of AIR Information that assessee has made cash deposits of Rs. 17,94,000/- in 2 ITA.No.1179/Del./2019 his saving bank account. The assessee had filed return of income on 19.03.2012 showing total income of Rs. 2,18,400/-.

Before issue of notice u/s 148 several letters were issued by the AO to ask for the details of the return filed and source of the cash deposits. However, no compliance was made by the assessee. At the assessment stage also AO give various opportunities to the assessee to explain source of the cash deposits, however, assessee did not make any compliance.

Therefore, AO passed the ex-parte order u/s 144 of the Act and made addition of Rs. 17,94,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposits. The assessee filed the appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The written submissions were filed to challenge the addition but no documentary evidence was filed to explain source of the cash deposits. It was merely contended that cash deposits were made out of sale proceeds of the business and gift received by assessee from his mother.

The Ld. CIT(A) asked the assessee to file additional evidences along with application under Rule 46A. However, assessee did not take any step. The appeal was adjourned many times but 3 ITA.No.1179/Del./2019 no documentary evidence filed before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), accordingly, dismissed the appeal of assessee.

3.

The present appeal is time barred by 91 days as per notings of the Registry. The assessee filed application for condonation of delay on the ground that assessee was sick and hospitalized which is supported by affidavit.

4.

The assessee has been notified the date of hearing through Registered Post. However, none appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing of the appeal.

5.

I have heard Ld. DR and perused the findings of authorities below.

6.

Considering the explanation of the assessee in application for condonation of delay, I am satisfied that assessee was prevented by sufficient cause in not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. The delay in filing the appeal is, therefore, condoned.

4 ITA.No.1179/Del./2019

7.

On merits, I find that it is not a case of interference at all.

The assessee in the ground of appeal merely stated that Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and without application of facts and that no proper opportunity of being heard have been given to the assessee. The impugned order shows that AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A) have given several opportunities to the assessee to explain source of the cash deposits. However, assessee failed to produce any documentary evidence to explain source of the cash deposits. No steps have been taken before the Ld. CIT(A) for admission of additional evidences under Rule 46A of the IT Rules. Therefore, assessee failed to explain the source of cash deposits in the bank account. Therefore, no interference is called for in the matter. I confirm the addition and dismissed the appeal of assessee.

8.

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open Court.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →