Vandematram Nagari Sahakari Patasanstha Marayadit , Raigad V. ITO, Ward 4, Panvel

ITA 1108/PUN/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4719 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-12-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 11-12-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 19-10-2023
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B” : PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1108/PUN/2023 Assessment Year 2011-2012 Vandemataram Nagari Sahakari Patasanstha Maryadit, Mauli Ashish, Ziral Ali, Pen, Dist. Raigad. PIN – 402 107. Maharashtra. PAN AAAAV1636N vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Panvel, Trifed Towers, 3 rd Floor, Opp. Khanda Colony, New Panvel, Dist. Raigad. PIN 410 206. Maharashtra. Appellant Respondent For Assessee : -None- For Revenue : Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari & Shri Umesh Phade Date of Hearing : 12.12.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 12.12.2023 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2011- 2012, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short [the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1055670242(1), dated 01.09.2023, involving proceedings u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. The very factual position had existed on the earlier 2 ITA.No.1108/PUN./2023 hearing(s) as well. We thus proceed ex-parte against the assessee. 2. We now come to the assessee’s sole substantive grievance challenging correctness of both the learned lower authorities action treating cash deposits of Rs.12 lakhs as it’s undisclosed/unexplained income. It emerges from a perusal of the Assessing Officer’s assessment dated 19.12.2018 that he had first initiated sec.148/147 proceedings and then proceeded to add the assessee’s entire cash deposits of Rs.56.40 lakhs [wrongly incorporated as Rs.5 lakhs in para-4]. The assessee filed it’s lower appeal coupled with additional evidence i.e., M/s. Saraswat Co-op. Bank’s clarification dated 19.01.2019 that the twin deposits of Rs.22.20 lakhs each; both dated 31.03.2012, had not been made in it’s name. The CIT(A) has thereafter granted relief of Rs.44.40 lakhs in very terms and confirmed the balance amount of Rs.12 lakhs in assessee’s hands. It is in this factual backdrop that the assessee seeks to delete the impugned balance addition amount of Rs.12 lakhs as well. 3. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the Revenue’s vehement contentions supporting the impugned addition and see no merit in the assessee’s instant sole substantive grievance. This is for the precise reason that it has not been able to explain the source of the impugned remaining 3 ITA.No.1108/PUN./2023 cash deposit of Rs.12 lakhs since the CIT(A) has already granted part relief to the tune of Rs.44.40 lakhs in foregoing terms. There is no evidence as well in the case file rebutting the learned lower authorities findings to this effect. We thus affirm the impugned addition of Rs.12 lakhs in assessee’s hands. Ordered accordingly. 4. This assessee’s appeal is dismissed in the above terms. Order pronounced in the open Court on 12.12.2023. Sd/- Sd/- (DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 12 th December, 2023 VBP/- Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant. 2. The Respondent. 3. The NFAC, Delhi. 4. The Pr. CIT-2, Thane. 5. DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 6. Guard File. BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // Senior Private Secretary ITAT, Pune.