TIKARAM SHARMA ,PALWAL vs. ITO WARD-2(4), FARIDABAD

1 ITA No. 1423/Del/2022 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI

BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No. 1423/DEL/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Tikaram Sharma, Vs Income-tax Officer, VPO Khambi Saraiya Mohalla, Ward-2(4), Faridabad. The. Hodal, Palwal-121106.

PAN- AJWPS4711M APPELLANT RESPONDENT

Assessee represented by Shri Anand Pandey, Adv. Department represented by Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR

Date of hearing 25.05.2023 Date of pronouncement 31.05.2023

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), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC),

Delhi, dated 20.12.2021, pertaining to the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee

has raised following grounds of appeal:

“1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in the Law, the NFAC has grossly erred in sustaining assessment order u/s 143(3) assessing income at Rs. 18,41,200 being without jurisdiction. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in the Law the

2 ITA No. 1423/Del/2022 NFAC has grossly erred in sustaining addition of Rs. 11,00,000 u/s 69A r/w sec 115BBE.”

27.02.2018, declaring income of Rs. 7,41,200/-. As per information available with

the department, the assessee had deposited Rs. 11,00,000/- in a/c no.

17341000023568 with HDFC Bank Limited during demonetization period.

Therefore, the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS

to examine the issue “Cash deposit during demonetization period”. In response to

notice issued by the AO to explain the source of cash deposit in his savings bank

a/c, the assessee vide letter dated 9.7.2019 explained that the cash had been

deposited out of opening balance and received from different persons. For want of

supporting evidence, the learned AO rejected the explanation furnished by the

assessee and concluded that the assessee had made cash deposits from undisclosed

sources. The AO, accordingly, completed the assessment at a total income of Rs.

18,41,200/- by adding Rs. 11,00,000/- to the returned income, u/s 69A of the

Income-tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”). Aggrieved against this the assessee preferred

appeal before the learned CIT(Appeals), who also affirmed the action of the AO.

Aggrieved against this the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

amount deposited by the assessee in his bank account. Learned counsel for the

3 ITA No. 1423/Del/2022 assessee submitted that the learned CIT(Appeals) failed to appreciate the fact that

the assessee was having source of income. He has also given cash flow statement.

The Authorities below did not consider the cash flow statement as submitted by the

assessee.

orders of the authorities below.

find that for the assessment year under consideration the assessee has claimed

opening balance of Rs. 8,65,146/-. The assessee had deposited amount of Rs.

11,00,000/- in HDFC Bank. The Authorities below have not appreciated the fact

regarding earning of income by the assessee and his bank statement. In the absence

of inquiry by the Assessing Officer and bringing any adverse material against the

assessee, the addition made by the Assessing Officer cannot be sustained as same

is based upon mere conjectures. Accordingly, the impugned addition is hereby

deleted and the grounds raised in this appeal are allowed.

Sd/- (KUL BHARAT) JUDICIAL MEMBER

4 ITA No. 1423/Del/2022

*MP* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI