SHRI PIYUSH MATHUR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 7(2), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2439/AHD/2013Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 November 2017AY 2009-103 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found no reason to disagree with the lower authorities' decision to treat the deposits as unexplained. The assessee failed to provide any evidence to substantiate his claims regarding the source of the funds.

What were the facts?

The assessee deposited Rs. 62.18 lacs in his savings bank account and claimed it was commission income and an advance made to another person. However, he failed to provide any supporting documents to prove the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of these deposits.

What were the issues?

Whether the unexplained cash deposits in the assessee's bank account can be added to his income under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act when the assessee fails to provide satisfactory explanation and supporting evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH AHMEDABAD

Hearing: 10.11.2017Pronounced: 29.11.2017

PER S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2009-10 arises against the CIT(A)-I, Thane’s order dated 19.07.2013, upholding Assessing Officer’s action making Section 69A addition of Rs.31.09 lacs in assessment order dated 29.12.2011, in proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”.

ITA No. 2439/Ahd/13 [Shri Piyush Mathur vs. AO] A.Y. 2009-10 - 2 -

Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest despite service of notice affected through department. Relevant service records already forms part of a case record. The assessee is accordingly proceeded ex parte.

2.

Relevant facts are in a very narrow compass. There is no dispute about the assessee to have deposited the sum in question of Rs.62.18lacs in his savings bank account. He pleaded in assessment proceedings that he had received commission income from M/s. Piyush Mathur & Co. and passed advanced made to one Shri C C. Shah to the tune of Rs.9.5lacs. We notice from assessment order that he could not file any such confirmation, bank statement or their returns so as to prove identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the above deposits. The Assessing Officer therefore treated the same s unexplained u/s.69A of the Act to make the impugned addition in assessment order dated 29.12.2011. The CIT(A) affirms Assessing Officer’s action in his ex parte lower appellate order.

3.

We have heard learned Departmental Representative strongly supporting the impugned addition. It emerges that the assessee’s instant case file does not contain even a single relevant document to explain his above cash deposits. We therefore find no reason to defer with both the lower authorities’ action making the impugned addition. The assessee fails in his sole substantive ground.

4.

This assessee’s appeal is accordingly dismissed.

[Pronounced in the open Court on this the 29th day of November, 2017.]

Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) (S. S. GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad: Dated 29/11/2017

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →