Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES “F” : DELHI
Before: SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI & Dr. B.R.R. KUMAR
ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M.
This appeal by Assessee has been directed against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A)-XXVIII, New Delhi, Dated 20.01.2014, for the A.Y. 2008-2009, challenging the addition of Rs.13,66,000/- under section 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961.
2 ITA.No.2108/Del./2014 Mr. Raj Punj, New Delhi.
Briefly the facts of the case are that assessee filed return of income on 13.10.2008 declaring income at Rs.1,40,500/-. The A.O. issued several statutory notices which have been served upon the assessee, but, none have been complied with. The A.O. issued show cause notice as to why ex-parte assessment order be not framed and called for the details of the assessee with regard to the source of the cash deposited in the Bank Account of the assessee. The assessee failed to explain the cash deposited in the Bank A/c of Rs.13,66,000/-. The A.O. in the absence of any evidence or material on record, passed the ex-parte assessment order under sections 144/143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961, and made addition of Rs.13,66,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposited in the Bank Account of the assessee.
The assessee challenged the addition before the Ld. CIT(A) and filed additional evidences and affidavit which is reproduced in the appellate order. The assessee explained that cash were deposited by taking loans and gifts from 07 persons in a sum of Rs.8,52,000/- namely Smt. Neelam
3 ITA.No.2108/Del./2014 Mr. Raj Punj, New Delhi. Gulati, Shri Raj Kumar, Smt. Anu Sethi, Shri Gagan Seth, Late Smt. Chandrakanta, Smt. Kavita Punj and Late Smt. Chandrakanta. Remand report from the A.O. was called for. The A.O. asked the assessee to produce all these persons. The assessee produced Smt. Neelam Gulati, Smt. Kavita Punj, Shri Gagan Sethi. Their statements were recorded, but, they could not explain the source of their giving cash loan/gift to the assessee. No Gift Deed have been executed. No source have been explained. The assessee did not produce any other person and no documentary evidences have been produced. The A.O. filed the remand report by discussing the entire evidence on record and stated that assessee had failed to prove creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction in the matter. The Ld. CIT(A) also discussed this issue in detail and noted that assessee has received cash loan/gift, but, failed to prove the source of the same. No source of the cash loan/gift have been proved by the assessee, therefore, it was found an afterthought and addition was confirmed. The appeal of assessee has been dismissed.
4 ITA.No.2108/Del./2014 Mr. Raj Punj, New Delhi. 4. This appeal was earlier dismissed for default which is restored by allowing the M.A. of the assessee.
We have heard the Assessee-In-Person. The assessee explained that he has taken loans/ gifts from the relatives, therefore, no addition could be made.
On the other hand, Ld. D.R. relied upon the Orders of the authorities below.
After considering the rival submission, we are of the view that addition is rightly made against the assessee. The assessee did not produce any evidence before the authorities below regarding cash deposited in his Bank Account. The assessee filed additional evidence before the Ld. CIT(A) and produced only three persons. The assessee explanation shows that only cash loan or gift have been received, for which, no evidence have been produced. The assessee did not produce any relevant and cogent evidence to prove the creditworthiness of the any of the persons and even some persons have not been produced before A.O. in the remand proceedings. Since assessee failed to prove
5 ITA.No.2108/Del./2014 Mr. Raj Punj, New Delhi. source of the cash deposited in his Bank Account and creditworthiness of the lender/donor, therefore, assessee failed to prove their creditworthiness of the and genuineness of the transaction in the matter. In the absence of any evidence on record, we do not find any merit in the appeal of the assessee and the same is accordingly dismissed.
In the result, appeal of the Assessee dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court.