SH. AMITESHWAR SINGH SIDHU,MOGA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

ORDER Per:Anikesh Banerjee, JM: The instant appeal of the assessee was filed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals),-43, New Delhi,[in brevity the CIT (A)] order passed u/s 250 (6) of the Income Tax Act 1961[in brevity the Act], for A.Y. 2017-18.The impugned order was emanated from the order of the ld.Income Tax Officer (Nodal Officer), International Taxation,Ward-3(1)(2) ,[in brevity the AO] order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. 2 Assessment Year: 2017-18

2. Because, the following observation of the Ld CIT (A) in the order are perverse, arbitrary, baseless and misleading, a. “The assessee has not been able to prove or justify the sources from where the income has earned during the year under consideration. Hence the action of the A.O. in charging tax at the rate prescribed u/Sl 15BBE in this case on the amount declared by the assessee as declared in the ROI for A.Y. 2017-18 is found sustainable and upheld (Para 5.1.5 of order).

2. Because, the Learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in overlooking and summarily rejecting the detailed statement of facts submitted along with Memorandum of Appeal, various documents and evidence placed in Paper Book filed, detailed written submission and case laws while accepting the lope- sided and factually incorrect version of Learned Assessing 3 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Officer. 4. Because, the Learned Lower Authorities are erred in making addition u/s 69A of the Act on account of cash deposited from explained sources by the assessee in his Bank Account with State Bank of India. The cash amounting Rs. 7,47,641/- has been deposited out of the explained sources of Income which are duly shown in Income Tax Return for the A.Y. 2017-2018. 5. That the appellant craves leave to add/ alter any of the grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing.

6. That it is prayed that the confirmed addition kindly be deleted and appeal be accepted.”

3. Brief fact of the case is that the assessee deposited cash in a day in State Bank of India on dated 27.12.2016 amount to Rs.28,40,000/-. In assessment, the ld. AO was dissatisfied about the explanation of the assessee about the source of cash deposit, the entire amount of Rs.28,40,000/- was added back with the total income of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) after considering the explanation of the assessee the addition of Rs.20,92,359/- was deleted and restricted the addition amount of Rs.7,47,641/-. Being aggrieved the assessee filed an appeal before us for addition amount to Rs 747,641/-.

4. When the appeal was called for hearing, none was present on behalf of the assessee. We find from the record that the written submission was filed by the ld. 4 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Counsel for the assessee. It was prayed to dispose the appeal by considering thewritten submission.In view of the above and considering the nature of dispute, we proceed to dispose the appeal after hearing the learnedDR and on the basis of material available on the record.