PARMOD BHANDARI,DELHI vs. ITO WARD INT.TAX 1(1)(2), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 605/DEL/2022Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 June 20234 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(Appeals), finding no reason to interfere with the relief granted after considering the evidence. The appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to file an income tax return for AY 2017-18. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions based on cash deposits during demonetization. The CIT(Appeals) granted partial relief.

What were the issues?

Whether the additions made by the AO on account of unexplained cash deposits and credits in bank accounts were justified, and if the relief granted by the CIT(Appeals) was appropriate.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “D”: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI M. BALAGANESH

For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Hearing: 05.06.2023

O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, JM: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-42, New Delhi, dated 10.02.2022, pertaining to the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:

“Confirming addition of Rs. 266500/- as unexplained cash deposit in bank account. Confirming addition of Rs. 141400/- as unexplained credit in bank account.” notice for hearing. The assessee has not cared even to apply for adjournment of hearing. Accordingly, we proceed to dispose of the appeal, ex parte, qua the assessee on merits and in that process we have heard learned DR and perused the material available on record.

3.

Facts of the case giving rise to the present appeal are that in this case the Assessing Officer had noticed that the assessee had not furnished any return of income for the assessment year 2017-18. On the basis of data analytics and information gathered during the phase of online verification under ‘Operation Clean Money’, the Income Tax Department gathered a list of assessee(s) who had deposited substantial cash in their bank accounts during the demonetization period.

As per that data the assessee had deposited cash of Rs. 10,66,500/- in his bank account during the demonetization period. Statutory notice was issued to the assessee but there was no compliance by the assessee. Therefore, the AO proceeded to make addition of the amount deposited in the bank account. Hence, he made addition of Rs. 10,66,500/- and also Rs. 13,71,400/-. Thus he made addition of Rs. 24,37,900/-. Aggrieved against this the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(Appeals), who after considering the material placed before him partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Thereby, out of addition of Rs. 13,71,400/-, he deleted the amount of Rs. 12,30,000/- and out of addition of Rs. aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

4.

We have heard learned DR and perused the material available on record, including the orders of the authorities below. We find that the learned CIT(Appeals) in its reasoned and elaborate order has duly taken into account the evidences in the form of bank details etc., produced by the assessee in support of its claim and has allowed substantial relief to the assessee. We see no reason to interfere in the findings and conclusion arrived at by the learned CIT(Appeals) in its order. Accordingly, the same is upheld. Consequently, grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are dismissed.

5.

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in open court on 20.06.2023.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →