RAM AVTAR BANSAL, NEW DELHI V. ITO, WARD- 61(2), NEW DELHI

ITA 2333/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0009 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-01-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 03-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: RAM AVTAR BANSAL
• Keywords: Source of fund; Revised return
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

1 ITA No. 2333/Del/2018 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: ‘F’, NEW DELHI) BEFORE SH. N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SH. C. N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No:-2333/Del/2018 ( Assessment Year: 2013-14) (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) Ram Avtar Bansal C-2/23, West Enclave, Pitampura, New Delhi AAIPB0755D Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 61 (2) New Delhi APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Sh. Ramavtar Bansal, CA Revenue by : Sh. Mrinal Kumar Dass, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 17.01.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 19.01.2022 ORDER PER: N. K. BILLAIYA, AM This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals], New Delhi dated 20.02.2018 for Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The grievance of the assessee read as under:- 2 ITA No. 2333/Del/2018 “1. That the assessment order passed by learned CIT (A) is illegal, bad in law and not maintainable or the fact and circumstance of the case. 2. That the assesses has explained source of funds of Rs. 73,41,300/- in the first appearance for out of which Rs. 60,02,800/- a revised return is filed as on 18/12/2015 during proceeding of the case u/s 44 AD and additional tax of Rs. 87,310/- was paid on 30/11/2015 in support M/s Dharampur Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs CIT (1973) ITR 236 Allahabad, where as for balance amount Rs. 12,38,300/- of cash deposit pertains to my son Siddharth Bansal SB A/c No. 9809010000147 with bank of Baroda Parvana Road, Pitampura, New Delhi- 110034, who is also income tax payee vide PAN AVVPN1020D and filed necessary income tax return in time. 3. That the learned assessing officer has not provided sufficient opportunity to the assesses. No registered notice was served to the assesses while making addition of Rs. 13,41,300/- u/s 68 on account of cash deposit inspite of all written submission as on 11/3/2016.” 3. Representative of both the sides were heard at length. The case record carefully perused. 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee is a practicing Chartered Accountant being partner in the firm M/s R. A. Bansal & Company. As per the AIR Information, the A.O came to 3 ITA No. 2333/Del/2018 know that the assessee had made cash transactions amounting to Rs. 60,02,880/- in h is bank accounts as under:- S. No. Name of Bank and A/c Holders Nature of A/c & No. Total Cash deposited during the F.Y 2012- 13 (Fig. in Rs.) 1 Union Bank of India joint a/c Smt. Darshana Devi Bansal (Mothers) and Sh. Ram Avtar Bansal SB A/c 20101000009914 33,61,0000/- 2 Union Bank of India joint a/c Sh. Ram AVtar Bansal (wife) and Smt. Amita Bansal SB A/C 448302010001386 11,30,700/- 3 State Bank of Patiala India joint a/c Sh. Ram Avtar Bansal (Wife) and Smt. Amita Bansal SB A/c 55009309192 15,11,100/- 5. The assessee was asked to explain the source of cash deposited in the aforementioned bank accounts. In his reply, the assessee accepted that the gross receipts of Rs. 60,02,800/- belong to him and simultaneously submitted a revised return on 18/1/2015. The gross receipts were shown as income from trading business of Grey Fabrics. The reasons for revising the return was mentioned as to buy peace and avoid litigation with the Income Tax Department in pursuance of AIR Information. 6. The A.O dismissed the revised return as in valid return and did not accept the claim of business for want of evidences. The 4 ITA No. 2333/Del/2018 aggregate amount of Rs. 73,41,300/- was treated as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and the addition was made accordingly. 7. The assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A) but without any success. 8. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below. In his written submission, the assessee has relied upon the various judicial decisions which are either irrelevant or not specific to the facts of the case in hand. In-fact, all the decisions relied upon by the Counsel are facts specific. 9. The assessee is a practicing Chartered Accountant and is, therefore, barred from doing any business. Only under certain circumstances, the governing body ICAI permits a practicing Chartered Accountant to do business. However, no such evidence was brought on record. The assessee has been harping upon the revised return which is in-fact an in valid return. Further, even before us the assessee has not brought on record any demonstrative evidence to justify his business activities. There is no evidence of any VAT, GST or permission from Municipality. Nor 5 ITA No. 2333/Del/2018 there are any evidences in respect of purchases/ sales of Gray Fabrics. 10. It appears that the revised return was filed only to cover up the queries raised during the assessment proceedings in respect of cash found to be deposited in various bank accounts. 11. On finding, no demonstrative evidences, we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A) filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 19.01.2022. Sd/- Sd/- [C. N. PRASAD] [N.K. BILLAIYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 19 .01.2022 R.N Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI 6 ITA No. 2333/Del/2018