Mr. Anil Ambadas Maind, Nashik V. ITO, Ward 1(1), Nashik, Nashik

ITA 144/PUN/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3495 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-03-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 21-01-2024
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BASAVARAJ HIREM ATH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.No.144/PUN./2024 Assessment Year 2011-2012 Mr. Anil Ambadas Maind Row House No.02, Shivbhakti Row Houses, Nashik Road, Jail Road, Nashik – 422 101 Maharashtra. PAN BANPM1535N vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward -1 (1), Kendriya Rajaswa Bhawan, Gadkari Chowk, Old Agra Road, Nashik – 422 002 Maharashtra. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Adjournment application rejected. For Revenue : Shri Basavaraj Hiremath Date of Hearing : 07.03.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 07.03.2024 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2011-12, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1058092906(1), dated 21.11.2023, involving proceedings u/s.144 r.w.s142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte. 2. The assessee pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal : 1. “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT-Appeal has erred in sustaining the illegal reassessment 2 ITA.No.144/PUN./2024 order passed by Ld. AO and thus, the impugned reassessment order passed by Ld. AO may please be quashed. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law and without prejudice to other grounds, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the part addition of Rs.12,28,193/- made by Ld. AO on account of cash deposited in Bank Account and hence, the same may please be deleted. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, alter, revise, substitute, or not press any or all grounds of the appeal, if deemed necessary at the time of hearing of the appeal, in the interest of justice.” 3. Mr. Basavaraj invited this tribunal’s attention to the Assessing Officer’s assessment order dated 14.12.2018 wherein the assessee had neither filed any return in response to sec.148 notice dated 31.03.2018 nor had he explained the source of the deposits amounting to Rs.24,24,643/- made in the relevant previous year. He next stated very fairly that all what the assessee had done during the course of hearing of lower appellate proceedings was to file the corresponding account statement wherein it emerged that the same contained multiple entries of withdrawals and re-deposits, as the case may be. Ld. CIT(A) appears to have partly upheld the foregoing impugned addition of Rs.24,24,643/- to the extent of “peak” amount of Rs.12,28,193/- only. There is no rebuttal coming to this clinching fact in assessee’s pleadings raised in the instant 3 ITA.No.144/PUN./2024 appeal. I therefore, find no merit in the assessee’s instant sole substantive grievance. Rejected accordingly. 4. This assessee’s appeal is dismissed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open Court on 07.03.2024. Sd/- [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 07 th March, 2024 VBP/- Copy to 1. The appellant 2. The respondent 3. The Pr. CIT, Pune concerned 4. D.R. ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. 5. Guard File. //By Order// //True Copy // Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Pune Benches, Pune.