SHADAB YAMEEN,ALIGARH vs. ITO., WARD-1, ALIGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6/AGR/2021Status: HeardITAT Agra17 February 2025AY 2009-10Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)1 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 held that the assessee failed to prove the source of cash deposits despite claiming them as business receipts. The appellant did not produce any supporting documents like books of account or sales bills, thus failing to discharge the onus under Section 68. The claim for adding only the peak amount of deposits was also rejected as self-contradictory.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for assessment year 2009-10 arises from an order by the CIT(A) concerning proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee failed to appear for hearings, and the case proceeded ex parte. The primary issue involved unexplained cash deposits amounting to Rs. 15,68,348/-.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee proved the source of unexplained cash deposits added by the Assessing Officer under Section 68. Whether the claim for addition of peak amount of deposits was acceptable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH, AGRA

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL

Hearing: 17.02.2025Pronounced: 17.02.2025

ORDER

Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:

1.

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2009-10, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short the “CIT(A)”], Ghaziabad’s order in appeal no. 973/2011-12/GZB/101 dated 28.08.2014, involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

2.

Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He had also not appeared on the preceding five hearing occasions as well.

We, accordingly, proceed ex parte against the assessee.

3.

Learned DR submits during the course of hearing that the assessee could not prove source of the cash deposits amounting to Rs.15,68,348/- which was added as unexplained in the course of assessment framed on 25.11.2011 as upheld in the lower appellate proceedings vide following detailed discussion :

“6.1 The main contention of the appellant is that these deposits were business receipts. However, the appellant has not produced any books of account or sales bill or identity of the parties to whom the sales have been made and payments have been received. In absence of such details, the appellant has failed to discharge the onus cast upon him for explaining the source of deposits. Therefore, the Assessing Officer's action of invoking provisions of Sec. 68 and adding Rs. 15.68,343/- is justified. 6.2 The appellant's claim that the peak amount of deposits should be added is not acceptable because nothing has been brought on record that the withdrawals were deposited back in the bank A/c. On the one hand the appellant claims that these are receipts from sales and on the other hand it claims that the peak amount may be added. These two claims of the appellant are self contradicting. Therefore, the contentions of the appellant are rejected and all the grounds of appeal are dismissed and addition is confirmed.”

4. It is thus clear that the assessee has neither pleaded nor proved source of his impugned cash deposits and therefore, we see no reason to accept his sole substantive ground, which stands rejected. Ordered accordingly.

5. Delay of 6 years 4 months and 1 day in filing of the assessee’s instant appeal is condoned in light of his condonation averments dated 13.03.2021, in the larger interest of justice.

5.

This assessee’s appeal is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 17.02.2025.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →