Rattan Singh, New Delhi V. ITO CIRCLE-26(2), New Delhi

ITA 1589/DEL/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1085 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-10-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 09-10-2022
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 13-09-2020
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business income

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1589/Del/2020 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Rattan Singh WZ-27, Street No.18, New Delhi-110018 PAN No.BKBPS9282C Vs ITO Circle- 26 (2) New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant None Respondent Sh. Om Parkash, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 10/10/2022 Date of Pronouncement: 12/10/2022 ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM: This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the CIT(A)-15, New Delhi dated 27.04.2015 for A.Y.2009-10. 2. The solitary grievance of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the AO amounting to Rs.1452105/-. 3. This appeal was first listed for hearing on 13.05.2021 and since then nobody is attending the appellate proceedings inspite of repetitive notices, therefore, I decided to proceed exparte. 2 4. The DR was heard at length. Case records carefully perused. 5. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income declaring total income of Rs.142170/- on 31.03.2010. The return was selected for scrutiny assessment through CASS and accordingly statutory notices were issued and served upon the assessee. 6. During the course of the scrutiny assessment proceedings the assessee was confronted with the information of cash deposit of Rs.2174750/- in his savings bank account with ICICI Bank, Meera Bagh, New Delhi. The assessee was asked to explain the source of cash deposit. In his reply the assessee stated that since he is engaged in construction work and also in some trading activities, therefore, all the transactions have been made from his savings bank account. The assessee explained that he has received the amount in cash and issued cheque to the parties from whom material was purchased. The AO partly accepted the contention of the assessee but made addition of Rs.1452105/-. 7. The assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A) and reiterated what has been stated before the AO. At the same time the assessee also claimed that the amount of cash deposited in the bank account was out of the withdrawal made by his mother from her bank account. After considering the submissions the 3 CIT(A) held as under :- “Further, bank account of the appellant’s mother Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur shows the withdrawal of Rs.5 lac on 28.06.2008 and withdrawal of Rs. 3 lac on 22.07.2008 which are claimed as sources of deposits in appellant’s account. Such claim of the appellant is without any substance as cash withdrawals from the appellant’s mother’s account in June-July 2008 cannot be treated as sources of cash deposits in appellant’s bank account in January 2009 unless the appellant produces evidences in this regard. The appellant miserably failed to substantiate such claim. Further, such stand is in contradiction to the earlier stand taken by the appellant that the cash deposits represented usual business receipts. Therefore, it is more than clear that the appellant is changing his arguments in respect of source of cash deposits as there is no explanation with regard to such deposits. The AO has been reasonable in only making addition in respect of peak amount of such deposits. The AO’s action in treating the peak amount of Rs.14,52,105/- as appellant’s unexplained income is fully justified. Therefore, the addition made by the AO is hereby upheld. The grounds of appeal are dismissed. 8. I have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below. 4 I find that the assessee is giving different reasons / sources for the cash deposited in his savings bank account with ICICI bank. Before AO he claimed that it is out of business receipt and before the CIT(A) the claim was out of the withdrawals made by his mother. 9. On both counts the assessee has miserably failed to substantiate the explanation with any supporting evidences, therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). The appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 12.10.2022. Sd/- (N. K. BILLAIYA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *NEHA, Sr. Private Secretary* Date:- .10.2022 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI 5 Date of dictation 11.10.2022 Date on which the typed draft is placed before the dictating Member 12.10.2022 Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Other member 12.10.2022 Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS 12.10.2022 Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for Pronouncement 12.10.2022 Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr. PS/ PS 12.10.2022 Date on which the final order is uploaded on the website of ITAT 13.10.2022 Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 13.10.2022 Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk. The date on which file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order Date of dispatch of the Order