Samsad Ali, Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 1866/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4074 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 29-03-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T VASANTHAN
• Keywords: Additional evidence

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI SMC BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1866 /DEL/201 7 [A.Y. 20 1 0 - 1 1 ] SHRI SAMSAD ALI VS. THE I.T. O A - 4/13, SULTANPURI WARD 21(3) DELHI NEW DELHI PAN : AJJPA 4442 Q [APPELLANT] [RESPONDENT] DATE OF HEARING : 0 5 . 1 0.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11 . 1 0.2017 ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SUHAIL A. SIDDIQ UI SHRI MOHD. SALIM REVENUE BY : SHRI T. VASANTHAN SR. DR ORDER THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARISES FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) - 13 , NEW DELHI VIDE ORDER DATED 1 0 . 06 .201 5 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 201 0 - 1 1 . 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED AS MANY AS NINE GROUNDS OF APPEAL . HOWEVER, THERE ARE ONLY TWO MAIN ISSUES INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL. FIRST IS WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION OF RS. 43,29,200/ - OF CREDIT ENTRIES IN THE 2 PASS BOOK AND SECOND ADDITION IS WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,80,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. 3. FACTS , IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN MAKING DEPOSITS RANGING FROM RS. 10,000/ - TO RS. 50,000/ - IN CASH DURING THE YEAR AND TOT A L CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK COME S TO RS. 43,29,200/ - , FOR WHICH NO EXPLANATION/INFORMATION OR DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES WERE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR EXPLAINING THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED RETURN OF INCOME AND HAS ALSO NOT FURNISHED A NY EXPLANATION WITH REGARD TO THE HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED RS. 43,29,200/ - AND RS. 1,80,000/ - TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. WHEN THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), HE WAS NOT GIVEN RELIEF. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), TH E PRESENT APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THIS T RIBUNAL. 5. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD . BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE IS H AVING ALL THE EVIDENCES AND EXPLANATIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE CASH DEPOSITS BUT T HE SAME COULD NOT BE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING 3 OFFICER AND THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PUT FORWARD ANY COGENT EXPLANATION FOR NOT SUBMITTIN G ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) FOR THE REASONS BEST KNOW TO HIM. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT SUBMITTED ANY ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THIS BENCH AS WELL. THEREFORE, IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, AND FACTS OF THE CASE, I DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) WHO HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THUS, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 6 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE AS SESSEE IS DISMISSED . THE ORDER IS PRO NOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11 . 1 0.2017. SD/ - [B.P. JAIN] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER D ATED: 11 TH OCTOBER , 2017 VL/ COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT 4 . CIT(A) 5 . DR ASST. REG ISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI