ANIL KUMAR VERMA,ALWAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), ALWAR, ALWAR
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, JAIPUR
Before: Dr. S. SEETHALAKSHMI & SHRI GAGAN GOYALAnil Kumar Verma, B-23, Malviya Nagar, Alwar- 301001 PAN No.:APVPA9342K
PER GAGAN GOYAL, A.M: This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of NFAC, Delhidated 12.08.2024 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: -
The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 9,58,000/- by treating the cash deposit in the bank account as income from undisclosed sources. He has further erred in confirming the addition by not admitting the additional evidence filed by the assessee under Rule 46A of IT Rules, 1962. 2
The assessee craves to amend, alter and modify any of the grounds of appeal.
The appropriate cost be awarded to the assessee.”
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee was amongst the non-filers of return u/s. 139 of the Act for the year under consideration. The revenue was in possession of information that the assessee had deposited Rs. 4.4 Lacs during the year under consideration, based in this information a notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee. But, there was no compliance made by the assessee in compliance to the notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Several notices were issued u/s. 148 and 142(1) of the Act, but there was no compliance from the assessee’s side. Ultimately, the case was assessed ex-parte u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act by making an addition of Rs. 9.58 Lacs. The assessee being aggrieved with this order of the AO preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who in turn confirmed the order of the AO, hence the present appeal is preferred before us. 3. We have gone through the order of the AO, order of the Ld. CIT(A) and submissions of the assessee alongwith grounds of appeal taken before us. It is observed that before the Ld. CIT (A), the assessee submitted that he is neither doing any business or service during the year under consideration. The assessee was studying during the year under consideration. He is the only son out of three daughters in which one sibling was permanently disabled, they all are dependents on his father and father used to give the money time to time to the son as a gift/house hold expenses for financial security of the marriage of the daughters. During the year under consideration the assessee deposited Rs. 5 Lacs, Rs. 3.60 Lacs, Rs. 49,000/- and Rs. 49,000/- again on 23.06.2010, 16.09.2010, 18.12.2010
and 03.03.2011 respectively. As per the assessee source of these deposits in cash emanates from the cash withdrawals made by the father of the assessee Sh.
Rameshwar Prasad Bairwa (An employee at BSNL).
4. The submissions made by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) were treated as additional evidences and the same were sent to the AO for his comments on 18.05.2023. Accordingly, the AO uploaded the remand report on 26.07.2023 and the same was forwarded to the assessee by issuing notice u/s. 250 of the Act on 15.07.2024 for filing rejoinder. The assessee has filed his rejoinder on 19.07.2024
and the same is reproduced in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) vide para 5.1 on page 9
and the same has been considered by us. It is observed that the same practice was there in preceding previous year also, i.e. A.Y. 2010-11. 5. We have carefully considered the bank statement of the assessee and his father vide page nos. 21-24 and 18-19 respectively of the paper book. It is beyond our understanding that why this model of cash withdrawals by the father and then after a time gap same has been deposited again in cash by the assessee in his bank account? Whereas the same can be transferred through banking channel also, e.g. deposit of Rs. 5 Lacs on 23.06.2010 was tried to explain via withdrawal by father on 12.06.2010 (Gap of 10 days), deposit of Rs. 3.6 Lacs on 16.09.2010
was tried to explain via withdrawal by father on 16.08.2010 (Gap of 30 days), deposit of Rs. 49,000/- on 18.12.2010 was tried to explain via withdrawal by father on 15.11.2010 (Gap of 33 days) and again deposit of Rs. 49,000/-
03.03.2011 was tried to explain via withdrawal by father on 10.02.2011 (Gap of 23
days). The theory of making provision for daughter’s marriage and security of family does not look tenable here.
It is further observed that the bank account of the assessee and his father are in the same city, still instead of bank transfer, they opted for cash withdrawals and cash deposits, same is not digestible and we are not agreed with the version of the assessee. In addition to this despite the fact that withdrawals and deposits in the same city then why there are gaps of 10 days to 30 days. In the light of above discussion, it can be reasonably concluded that the arguments of the assessee are not at all convincing and representing a genuine explanation to the satisfaction of the bench. The addition of Rs. 9.58 Lacs are confirmed and grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 5thday of February 2025. (Dr. S. SEETHALAKSHMI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Jaipur, िदनांक/Dated: 05/02/2025
Copy of the Order forwarded to:
अपीलाथ /The Appellant , 2. ितवादी/ The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयु CIT 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., Sr.DR., ITAT, 5. गाड फाइल/Guard file.
BY ORDER,
////
(Asstt.