MANAK GARG,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 59(1), NEW DELHI
Facts
The assessee appealed against a CIT(A) order dated 28.03.2019 which confirmed additions made by the Assessing Officer in a reassessment completed under Section 144/147 for Assessment Year 2010-11. The additions included unexplained cash deposits in HDFC Bank, credit entries and other receipts from HSL Securities, and a disallowed deduction under Section 80C, initiated based on AIR information after the assessee failed to file an Income Tax Return.
Held
The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s findings, concluding that the reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 were valid as the assessee had not filed an ITR. The assessee failed to provide supporting evidence for their claims that the deposits were sales or net payments, despite opportunities given by the CIT(A), thus upholding the additions.
Key Issues
The key issues were the validity of the reassessment proceedings, including proper notice service under Section 149 and initiation timing, and the sustainability of additions for unexplained cash deposits, security transactions, and a disallowed Section 80C deduction due to lack of supporting evidence from the assessee.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 148, 149, 80C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI G.S. PANNU, VICE- & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA
THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 3498/Del/2019 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Manak Garg (Individual), Vs. ITO, Ward 59(1), F-17, West Vinod Nagar, New Delhi Delhi-1100 92 PAN: AACCN8595N (Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by N o n e Department by Shri Ansul, Sr. DR
Date of hearing 02.05.2024 Date of pronouncement 10.06.2024
ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA: JUDICIAL MEMBER: Assessee has filed the appeal against the order dated 28.03.2019 under Sections 147 read with section 144 of the Income- Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred “the Act” ) passed by the learned
2 ITA No.3498/Del/2019 Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-38, New Delhi in an appeal before him arising out of assessment order dated 22.12.2017 passed by the ITO, Ward-59(1), New Delhi (hereinafter referred as “the A.O. or in short “AO”) under Section 144/147 of the Act for assessment year 2009-10. 2. Heard and perused the record. 3. At the time of hearing, none appeared for and on behalf of the assessee and record shows that notices have been issued repeatedly and on 21.09.2022 and 20.12.2022, Shri Ms. S. Rohatagi, CA had appeared and sought adjournment and even a paper book stands filed on 20.12.2022. On subsequent notices, none is appearing for the assessee. No more notice is justified. 4. Learned Departmental Representative was heard who has supported the orders of the tax authorities below. 5. After considering the material before us, it comes up that on the basis of AIR information of cash deposits, proceedings under Section 147 of the Act were initiated by issuance of notices under Section 148 of the Act and as the assessee had failed to response to the queries raised, being a time barring matter, assessment was concluded under
3 ITA No.3498/Del/2019 Section 144/147 of the Act by making additions on account of cash deposits in HDFC Bank to the tune of Rs.7,22, 765 and credit entries of Rs.18,49,000 from HSL Securities qua security transactions and on Rs.21,81,258 against other receipts from HSL Securities and further an addition of Rs. 1,00,000 was made in regard to deduction under Section 80C without any evidence. 6. As we go through the grounds raised, we find that there is an averment that there was no proper service of notice under Section 149 of the Act, however, with that regard to same there is no submission or material on record. The claim of assessee is that reassessment proceedings have been initiated after four years from the end of assessment year 2010-11. As a matter of fact, as we go through the copy of reasons available at page 22 of the paper book, we find that on the basis of the fact that Income Tax Return was not filed and the proceedings were initiated. Apparently, there is no illegal exercise or jurisdiction under Sections 147/148 of the Act. Further, assessee’s claim was that deposits were by way of sales from business of M/s. Aggarwal Sweets and assessee had filed a claim of debit and credit entries in HDFC Bank account with regard to transactions with HSL
4 ITA No.3498/Del/2019 Securities to claim that actually there was only net payment and there was no income earned. However, these entries were not supported by further evidences by way of bills or vouchers etc. Thus, the reasons for sustaining the additions by learned Commissioner (Appeals) require no evidences. In fact, learned Commissioner (Appeals) observes specifically inspite of giving opportunity to file additional evidences, same were not filed. There is no error in the findings of learned Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal of assessee is dismissed. 7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 10 /06/2024. Sd/- Sd/- (G.S. PANNU) ( ANUBHAV SHARMA) VICE-PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 10th June, 2024. Mohan Lal
