IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES SMC: DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.NO.196/DEL./2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-2011 SHRI RAVINDER KUMAR, C-40, GALI NO.3, WEST CHANDER NAGAR, DELHI. PIN 110 051. PAN BKLPK2219M VS., THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-59(4), VIKASH BHAWAN, D-BLOCK, NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI RAJESH MAHNA AND SHRI RAMANAND ROY, ADVOCATES. FOR REVENUE : SHRI S.L. ANURAGI, SR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 20.08.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02.09.2019 ORDER THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-19, NEW DELHI, DATED 30.11.2018, FOR THE A.Y. 2010-2011, CHALLENGING THE ADDITION OF RS.15,86,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME FRO M UNEXPLAINED SOURCES UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE I.T. AC T, 1961. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT IN THIS CASE INFORMATION FOR NON-FILING OF ITR FOR THE A.Y. 2010 -11 WAS 2 ITA.NO.196/DEL./2019 SHRI RAVINDER KUMAR, DELHI. RECEIVED THROUGH NMS CYCLE. ON PERUSAL OF ITS DATA FOR THE A.Y. 2010-11, A.O. NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD DEPOSITED CASH OF RS.15,86,000/- IN HIS BANK ACCOUN T WITH THE KHATRI CO-OP (U) BANK LTD. DURING THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR UNDER APPEAL. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REOPENED UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE I.T. ACT. STATUTORY NOTICES WERE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, NONE HAVE BEEN ATTENDED TO B Y THE ASSESSEE. SUBSEQUENTLY, ASSESSEE HAS FILED COPY OF THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPE AL DECLARING INCOME OF RS.1,26,999/- FILED ON 08.12.20 17 IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. THEREAFTER, ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE A.O. AND NO EXPLANATION HAVE BEEN FILED. THE A.O. IN THE ABSENC E OF ANY COOPERATION FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE PASSED TH E RE- ASSESSMENT ORDER AND MADE ADDITION OF RS.15,86,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT IN BANK ACCOUNT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE I.T. ACT. 2.1. THE ADDITION WAS CHALLENGED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE WAS RUNNING GENERAL STORE SHOP AND CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WAS FROM 3 ITA.NO.196/DEL./2019 SHRI RAVINDER KUMAR, DELHI. SALES MADE. THE ASSESSEE HAS NO OTHER INCOME. THE C ASH HAS BEEN DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT REGULARLY IN 2-3 DAYS GAP. THE LD. CIT(A) FOUND THAT WHATEVER WAS SU BMITTED BY ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN SUBSTANTIATED THROUGH ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD. THEREFORE, ADDITION WAS CONFIRM ED. 3. I HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE OF BOTH THE PARTIES. 4. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME DECL ARING IN TERMS OF SECTION 44AD OF THE I.T. ACT. HE HAS FILED COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW THAT CAS H HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED AFTER INTERVAL OF FEW DAYS. HE HAS S UBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE ISSUED CHEQUES FROM THE BANK ACCO UNT FOR MAKING PURCHASES. HE HAS, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT MATTER MAY BE REMANDED TO THE FILE OF A.O. AND ASSESSEE WI LL PRODUCE PURCHASE BILLS BEFORE A.O. FOR RECONSIDERAT ION. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE 4 ITA.NO.196/DEL./2019 SHRI RAVINDER KUMAR, DELHI. AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT ASSESSEE WAS DOING ANY BUSIN ESS AND CASH HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS. NO C OPY OF THE PURCHASE BILLS HAVE BEEN PRODUCED BY ASSESSEE B EFORE ANY AUTHORITY. THEREFORE, ADDITION MAY BE CONFIRMED . 6. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE OR DERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT ASSESS EE MADE CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.15,86,000/- IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT DURING FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER AP PEAL. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN NATURE AND SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ASSESSEE FOR THE FIRST TIME CONTENDED BEFORE TH E LD. CIT(A) THAT HE IS RUNNING A GENERAL STORE SHOP AND CASH HAS BEEN DEPOSITED OUT OF THE SALES MADE. THE EXPLANATI ON OF ASSESSEE IS NOT SUPPORTED ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES . FURTHER, WHEN ASSESSEE MADE PURCHASES OUT OF THE SA ME BANK ACCOUNT AS PER THE CONTENTION OF LEARNED COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL, ASSESSEE COUL D HAVE PRODUCE PURCHASE BILLS BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW TO SHOW THAT IT WAS IN FACT THE BUSINESS TRANSACTION OF ASS ESSEE. 5 ITA.NO.196/DEL./2019 SHRI RAVINDER KUMAR, DELHI. HOWEVER, ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE BEFO RE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. SAME IS THE POSITION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY PURCHASE BILLS TO SHOW THAT PURCHASES WERE MADE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL OU T OF THE SAME BANK ACCOUNT IN WHICH CASH HAVE BEEN DEPOS ITED. THEREFORE, THERE WERE NO JUSTIFICATION EVEN TO REMA ND THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF A.O. AS IS ARGUED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVI DENCE ON RECORD, I DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFER E WITH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DISMISS THE APP EAL OF ASSESSEE. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF ASSESSEE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) DELHI, DATED 2 ND SEPTEMBER, 2019 JUDICIAL MEMBER VBP/- COPY TO 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) CONCERNED 4. CIT CONCERNED 5. D.R. ITAT SMC BENCH 6. GUARD FILE 6 ITA.NO.196/DEL./2019 SHRI RAVINDER KUMAR, DELHI. //BY ORDER// ASST. REGISTRAR : ITAT : DELHI BENCHES : DELHI. DATE OF DICTATION 20.08.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT ORDER IS PLACED BEFOR E THE DICTATION MEMBER 21.08.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVAL DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P S 02.09.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATION MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 02.09.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S. 02.09.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE FINAL ORDER IS UPLOADED ON THE WEBSITE OF ITAT 02.09.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 02. 09.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER DATE OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER.