Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘SMC’ BENCH,
Before: SHRI B.P. JAIN
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. The order is pronounced in the open court on 11.10.2017.