GIRISH O BANG,MUMBAI vs. ITO 25(2)(4), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3032/MUM/2012Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 December 2015AY 2008-093 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 upheld the order of the CIT(A), finding no infirmity in the decision to restrict additions to the peak cash credit. The assessee's failure to appear led to an ex-parte disposal.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals relate to additions made by the AO on account of unexplained bank deposits for AY 2007-08 and 2008-09. The CIT(A) sustained part of the additions based on the peak credit theory.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition on account of unexplained bank deposits should be restricted to the peak credit, and if the CIT(A)'s decision was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: S/SHRI B.R.BASKARAN & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN

Hearing: 3.12.2015Pronounced: 3.12.2015

PER B.R.BASKARAN,AM: Both the appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the orders passed by the ld.CIT(A)-35, Mumbai and they relate to the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09. 2. Assessee is aggrieved by the decision of ld.CIT(A) in partially confirming the addition of deposits found in the bank account of the assessee in both the years.

3.

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

4.

We heard the ld. DR and perused the record. We notice that the assessee could not properly explain the sources of deposits made in his bank account and hence, the AO assessed the entire amount of deposits made in the bank account aggregating to Rs.65.14 lakhs and Rs.29.35 lakhs respectively for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 respectively.

5.

In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT(A) followed peak credit theory, accordingly sustained the addition to the extent of Rs.10.54 lakhs and Rs.12.35 lakhs for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 respectively. Still aggrieved, the assessee has filed these appeals before us.

6.

A perusal of the orders passed by the ld. CIT(A) show that the First Appellate Authority has taken a conscious decision after considering the entire gamut of facts surrounding the issue. Further we notice that the ld. CIT(A) has followed the decision rendered by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in ITA No.4314/Mum/2008 relating to assessment year 2005-06, wherein the Tribunal had held that additions should be restricted to peak cash credit. Under these set of facts, we do not find any infirmity in the order of ld.CIT(A) and accordingly upheld the same for both the years.

7.

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 3rd Dec 2015. (संदीप गोसधई/SANDEEP GOSAIN) (बी.आर.बधस्करि/ B.R.BASKARAN) न्यधनयक सदस्य/Judicial Member ऱेखध सदस्य /Accountant Member मुंबई Mumbai; ददनांक Dated.. 3rd Dec,2015 व.नि.स./ SRL, Sr. PS

आदेश की प्रतिलऱपप अग्रेपिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अऩीराथी / The Appellant 1. प्रत्मथी / The Respondent. 2. आमकय आमुक्त(अऩीर) / The CIT(A)- concerned 3. आमकय आमुक्त / CIT concerned 4. 5. ववबागीम प्रतततनधध, आमकय अऩीरीम अधधकयण, भुंफई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai concerned गार्ड पाईर / Guard file. 6. आदेशानुसाय/ BY ORDER,सहामक ऩंजीकाय (Asstt.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →