What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) who had granted telescoping benefit for cash withdrawals and deposits. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order.

The assessee declared an income of Rs. 1,60,180/-. The AO added Rs. 48,72,671/- as unexplained cash deposits in a bank account. The CIT(A) sustained the addition to the extent of peak credit after considering withdrawals.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made by the AO on account of unexplained cash deposits was justified, and if the CIT(A) correctly applied the principle of telescoping.

ITO vs Sh. Harish Goel, New Delhi | ITAT Delhi 2017

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI

Before: BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY & SMT. BEENA A PILLAI

PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue directed against the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)-XXVII, New Delhi dated 21.11.2013 pertaining to the A.Y. 2007-08. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite issual of notice. Hence we dispose of the case ex parte on merits after hearing the Ld.Sr.D.R. 2. Heard Shri Amrit Lal, Ld.Sr.D.R. on behalf of Revenue. 3. Facts:- The assessee is an individual and filed his return of income on 7.3.2008 declaring income of Rs.1,60,180/-. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) passed an order u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on 23.12.2009 and made an addition of Rs.48,72,671/- being unexplained cash deposits in bank. The assessee had a saving bank account with Centurian Bank of Punjab Ltd. Chandni Chowk, New Delhi. The entire cash deposits made by the assessee in this account as well as the bank interest of Rs.57,000/- was added. The assessee carried the matter in appeal. The First Appellate Authority considered the explanation of the assessee and

ITA 610/Del/14 A.Y. 2007-08 ITO vs. Harish Goel held that the assessee is not having any proper explanation. The explanation of the assessee that the cash deposits are from sale proceeds only and no further addition to his income is required was rejected. After considering the turnover of the assessee, the First Appellate Authority sustained the addition only to the extent of the peak credit. In other words telescoping benefit was given for the cash withdrawals and cash deposits. We find no infirmity in this order of the First Appellate Authority. Hence we uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and dismiss this appeal of the Revenue.

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 06th January, 2017.

Sd/- Sd/- (BEENA A PILLAI) (J.SUDHAKAR REDDY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: the 06th January, 2017 *manga

ITA 610/Del/14 A.Y. 2007-08 ITO vs. Harish Goel Copy of the Order forwarded to:

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SH. HARISH GOEL, NEW DELHI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments