DEEPAK SITARAM NETKE,MUMBAI vs. ITO 25(1)(4), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3854/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 September 2017AY 2009-103 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 confirmed the order of the CIT(A) which sustained the addition to the extent of the peak credit of Rs. 17,55,050/-. The assessee failed to provide any material to challenge the peak credit calculation or substantiate the claims of gifts and loans.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment based on cash deposits totaling Rs. 22,83,000/- in the assessee's bank account. The assessee provided explanations for these deposits, including gifts and loans, which could not be substantiated.

What were the issues?

Whether the unexplained cash deposits in the bank account can be added as income of the assessee, and the validity of the peak credit method for determining the addition.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” Bench, Mumbai

Before: Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM)

For Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari
Hearing: 18.9.2017Pronounced: 18.9.2017

The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 25- 02-2016 passed by Ld CIT(A)-44, Mumbai and it relates to the assessment year 2009-10. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of the AO in partially confirming the addition made by the assessing officer relating to deposits found in the bank account of the assessee.

2.

The appeal is barred by limitation by 24 days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the bench to condone the delay. I heard the parties and perused the petition. Having regard to the submissions made in the petition, I condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing.

3.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee, even though the notice of hearing was sent to him by registered post on more than one occasion. Hence I proceed to dispose of the appeal ex-parte, without the presence of the assessee.

2 Shri Deepak Sitaram Netke

4.

The assessee’s sources of income were income from salary and other sources. The assessing officer reopened the assessment on receiving information that the assessee has made cash deposits aggregating to Rs.22,83,000/- in his bank account. The assessee explained that the deposits have been made, inter alia, out of (a) Gift received from father - Rs.12,65,000/- (b) Friendly loans received - Rs. 3,75,000/- (c) Cash withdrawals made from bank Rs.10,84,350/- Since the assessee could not substantiate the explanations, the AO assessed the above said three amounts aggregating to Rs.27,24,350/- as income of the assessee. The Ld CIT(A) took the view that the peak credit of deposits should be assessed as income of the assessee. Accordingly the Ld CIT(A) sustained the addition to the extent of peak credit amount of Rs.17,55,050/- and granted relief to the extent of Rs.9,69,300/-. Still aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal.

5.

I heard Ld D.R and perused the record. I notice that the aggregate amount of deposits found in the bank account was Rs.22,83,000/-. As against this, the AO has made addition of Rs.27,24,350/- on the basis of cash flow statement given by the assessee. However, the Ld CIT(A) has restricted the addition to the amount of peak credit of Rs.17.55 lakhs. Before the Tribunal, the assessee has not furnished any material to show that the peak credit worked out by the Ld CIT(A) was wrong. I also notice that the assessee could not substantiate the claim of receipt of gifts and loans. Under these set of facts, I have no other option, but to confirm the order passed by Ld CIT(A).

3 Shri Deepak Sitaram Netke

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order has been pronounced in the Court on 18.9.2017.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →