Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES: ‘F’, NEW DELHI
Before: SMT. BEENA A PILLAI & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI
(Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by : Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. DR Assessee by : None Date of Hearing : 06/11/2018 Date of Pronouncement: 14/11/2018 ORDER PER BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal has been filed by revenue against order dated 14/08/15 passed by Ld. CIT (A), Muzaffarnagar for assessment year 2011-12 on following grounds of appeal: 1. “The Ld.CIT(A) Muzaffarnagar while computing the peak credit for disallowance of unexplained cash credits, erred in law and on facts, and failed to follow the specific directions of the Ld. ITAT, given in assessee’s own case in and ITA 5235/Del/2012 dated 22.02.2013 for AY 2009-10, in so far as the receipts on account of truck income were to be considered ‘after comparing with some similar cases and or on some rational basis’ whereas the Ld. CIT(A) merely accepted the receipts declared by the assessee.
2. The Ld. CIT(A) Muzaffarnagar, while computing the peak credit for disallowance of unexplained cash credits, erred in law and on facts, in so far as the peak credit was 1 Dinesh Chand Tyagi required to be calculated in respect of each of the bank accounts of the assessee, whereas the Ld.CIT(A) simply adopted the credit appearing in the bank accounts on the last day of the relevant year as ‘peak credit’.
3. The Ld. CIT(A) Muzaffarnagar, while computing the peak credit for disallowance of unexplained cash credit, erred in law and on facts, in further reducing the sum by Rs. 8 lakhs, by considering the cash deposit of Rs. 8 lakhs as part of the sale proceeds of truck sold by the assessee during the year whereas, there was no substantiating evidence on record to show that the said cash of Rs. 8 lakhs, deposited on various dates in the accounts of the assessee, was necessarily part of the sale proceeds of the truck.
The Ld. CIT(A) Muzaffarnagar has erred in law and on facts, in holding: - a) That merely because the registration of the truck changed from being in the name of the assessee to the purchaser, the quantum of claim of the sale proceeds at Rs. 8 lakhs was genuine and correct. b) That merely because the asset under consideration was capital in nature, the assessee was not required to prove the genuineness of the transaction.”
Brief facts of the case are as under: Assessee is an individual and filed his return of income on 31/03/12 declaring total income of Rs.5,01,250/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143 (2) of the Act was issued along with questionnaire and notice under section 142 (1) of the Act. In response to statutory notices, representative of assessee appeared before the Ld. AO and filed requisite details as called for. Ld.AO observed that assessee derives its income from playing in trucks and agricultural income Ld.AO observed that assessee showed an amount of Rs.79,964/- against bank interest/NSE interest etc. Ld.AO observed that a sum of Rs.79,08,500/- was deposited in cash which related to receipts Dinesh Chand Tyagi from playing of trucks. Since assessee could not produce any authentic evidence to prove accumulation of cash is deposited the submissions of assessee was disbelieved. Assessing officer thus, made an addition of Rs.79,08,500/-. 2.1 Aggrieved by the addition made by Ld.AO assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT (A). 2.2 Ld. Sr. DR placed reliance upon the order of Ld. AO 2.3 We have perused the orders passed by authorities below. It is observed that before Ld.CIT (A) assessee furnished detailed working of deposits amounting to Rs.79,08,500/- and withdrawals at Rs.56,70,00/-. It was contended that withdrawals have been made exclusively to run business of assessee. Assessee placed before Ld.CIT (A) on order of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2009-10, wherein peak credit was computed. Assessee submitted computation of peak credit for year under consideration before Ld.CIT (A). Ld. CIT (A) following decision of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2009-10 (supra) restricted addition at Rs.7,70,425/- being peak credit for year under consideration.
We do not find any infirmity in observations of Ld. CIT (A) and the same is upheld. Accordingly the grounds raised by revenue stands dismissed. In the result appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 14/11/2018 Sd/- Sd/- (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (BEENA A PILLAI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dt. 14th November,2018 *Kavita Arora