MOHAN BALLABH SHARMA (THROUGH LEGAL HEIR KANHAIYA LAL SHARMA) HEIR,BAHARATPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHARATPUR

ORDER PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 25-10-2023, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2011-12 raising therein following grounds of appeal. ‘’1.’ The Id CIT appeals has erred in disposing off the ground for initiation of proceeding u/s 147 and issuance of the notice u/s 148 which is void and bad-in- law without adjudication. Under the facts and circumstances of the case the initiation of the proceeding u/s 147 MOHAN BALLABH SHARMA THRU’ L/H SHRI KANHIYA LAL SHARMA VS ITO,WARD-1, BHARATPUR and issuance of the notice u/s 148 which is bad in law and void, is liable to be quashed.

2. The ld CIT appeals has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.71,11,800/ on account of unexplained cash credits of Rs.71,11,800/- u/s 68 on account of cash depositing bank account. Under the facts and circumstances of the case the confirmation of the action of Ld CIT appeals for upholding the addition of Rs. 71,11,800/- may kindly be deleted.

3. The Id CIT appeals has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.24,66,380/- being the receipts of Brij trust registered outside India in which the assessee is beneficiary. Under the facts and circumstances of the case the confirmation of the action of Ld CIT appeals for upholding the addition of Rs.24,66,380/ may kindly be deleted.’’ 2.1 Apropos Ground No. 1 to 3, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under:- ‘’6.4.4) In the instant case the AO has clearly established that the appellant has not been able to prove the credits in his saving bank account. In fact the AO has given enough opportunity to the assessee. Even during the course of present appeal proceedings in response to various notices issued fixing the case for hearing, the appellant apart from seeking adjournments, has not furnished any cogent evidence in support of the grounds raised against the above addition. The appellant could not furnish any satisfactory evidence to contradict the findings of the AO. Even details with regard to the formation of the Brij Trust, its objectives, details of transfers from the Trust to appellant, date of transfer etc., were not furnished in course of appellate proceedings in spite of several opportunities given to the appellant. It is noticed that the appellant time and again has been seeking adjournments without submitting corroborative evidences.