SAMSAD ALI,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1866/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 October 2017AY 2010-113 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 upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) as the assessee failed to provide any cogent explanation or evidence for the cash deposits and household expenses, even before the Tribunal.

What were the facts?

The assessee made cash deposits of Rs. 43,29,200/- in their bank account and incurred household expenses of Rs. 1,80,000/- without providing any explanation or documentary evidence to the Assessing Officer or CIT(A). The assessee also did not file a return of income.

What were the issues?

Whether the additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained cash deposits and household expenses are justified when the assessee failed to provide any evidence or explanation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘SMC’ BENCH,

Before: SHRI B.P. JAIN

For Appellant: Shri Suhail A. Siddiqui, Shri Mohd. Salim
Hearing: 05.10.2017Pronounced: 11.10.2017

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘SMC’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [A.Y. 2010-11] Shri Samsad Ali Vs. The I.T.O A-4/13, Sultanpuri Ward 21(3) Delhi New Delhi PAN : AJJPA 4442 Q [Appellant] [Respondent] Date of Hearing : 05.10.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 11.10.2017 Assessee by : Shri Suhail A. Siddiqui Shri Mohd. Salim Revenue by : Shri T. Vasanthan Sr. DR ORDER This appeal of the assessee arises from the order of the ld. CIT(A)-13, New Delhi vide order dated 10.06.2015 for assessment year 2010-11.

2.

The assessee has raised as many as nine grounds of appeal. However, there are only two main issues involved in this appeal. First is with regard to the addition of Rs. 43,29,200/- of credit entries in the pass book and second addition is with regard to the addition of Rs. 1,80,000/- on account of household expenses.

3.

Facts, in brief, are that the assessee has been making deposits ranging from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- in cash during the year and total cash deposits in the bank comes to Rs. 43,29,200/-, for which no explanation/information or documentary evidences were furnished by the assessee for explaining the source of cash deposits in the bank account. The assessee has not furnished return of income and has also not furnished any explanation with regard to the house hold expenses. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer added Rs. 43,29,200/- and Rs. 1,80,000/- to the total income of the assessee.

4.

When the assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), he was not given relief. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the present appeal is filed by the assessee before this Tribunal.

5.

I have heard both the sides and perused the relevant material on record. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that he is having all the evidences and explanations with respect to the cash deposits but the same could not be submitted before the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A). The ld. counsel for the assessee could not put forward any cogent explanation for not submitting additional evidences before the ld. CIT(A) for the reasons best know to him. The assessee has also not submitted any additional evidence before this bench as well. Therefore, in such circumstances, and facts of the case, I do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) who has rightly confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer in confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are dismissed.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. The order is pronounced in the open court on 11.10.2017.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →