Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH : CHENNAI
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY]
आदेश / O R D E R
PER INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- Puducherry,
ITA No.3102 /2017 :- 2 -: (‘CIT(A)’ for short) dated 11.10.2017 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2014-2015. The brief facts of the case are as under: 2.
The appellant is an individual, deriving income under the heads ‘’income from capital gains’’ and ‘’income from other sources’’. The return of income for the AY 2014-15 was filed on 18.01.2016 disclosing total income of Rs.97,280/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Villupuram (hereinafter referred as ‘’Assessing Officer’’) vide order dated 29.12.2016 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) at total income of �56,08,665/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made addition of �50,00,000/- as unexplained cash deposits and disallowed an expenditure incurred in computing capital gains on sale of property of �6,08,665/- as assessee had failed to substantiate the expenditure incurred for land reclamation charges of �7,00,000/- and building construction expenses of �2,00,000/-.
Being aggrieved by the above additions, the assessee preferred an appeal before ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order had dismissed the appeal rejecting the contention of the assessee that ITA No.3102 /2017 :- 3 -:
cash deposited in bank account were made out of accumulated income earned from dairy farm and gift of �25,00,000/- received from his mother. As regards to the disallowance of claim towards land reclamation charges of �7,00,000/- and building construction expenditure of �2,00,000/-, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition as assessee failed to substantiate the claim.
Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. On the day of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice.
On the other hand, the ld. Sr. Departmental Representative 5. placed reliance on the orders of lower authorities.
We heard the ld. Sr. Departmental Representative and 6. perused the material on record. We do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A) as the ld. CIT(A) has passed well reasoned order considering the material on record and the submissions made by the assessee. Thus, we do not find any merits in the appeal filed by the assessee.
ITA No.3102 /2017 :- 4 -:
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed.
Order pronounced on 12th day of December, 2019, at Chennai.