Braham Prakash, Haryana V. ITO ward-1, Haryana

ITA 2393/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1954 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-05-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 19-03-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 2393/DEL/2019 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: I(2) + SM C 1 NEW DELHI BEFORE MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEM BER, AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOU NTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 2393/DEL/2019 ( A.Y 2009-10) BRAHAM PRAKASH HOUSE NO. 1090, SESCTOR-4, REWARI HARYANA PIN: 123401 PAN: AHWPP3732F (APPELLANT) VS ITO WARD-1 MODEL TOWN, REWARI HARYANA PIN: 123401 (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SH. PRADEEP SINGH GAUTAM, SR. DR ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER DATED 17/01/2019 PASSED BY CIT(A)- ROHTAK, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 -10. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:- 1. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO IS BAD IN LAW AND FACT FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION UNDER FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE A PPEAL. 2. THE APPELLANT HUMBLY REITERATES ALL THE FACTS A ND GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BEFORE THE LD CIT (APPEALS). THE CIT(A) HAS BLINDLY CONFIRMED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 3. THE CIT (A) HAS COMMITTED A MISTAKE ON FACTS AN D CIRCUMSTANCES PREVAILING IN THE CASE AND AS PER PROVISION AND SCH EME OF THE ACT. THE CIT (A) HAS NOT CONSIDERED LEGAL AND FACTUALLY THAT THE REA SONS RECORDED U/S 148 HAS NO RELEVANCY WITH MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. THE REASONS RECORDED DATE OF HEARING 05.03.2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 04.05.2020 2 ITA NO. 2393/DEL/2019 UNDER SEC 148 ARE DIFFERENT FROM MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THERE IS NO VITAL LINK BETWEEN REASONS AND EVIDENCE. 4. THE CIT (A) HAS COMMITTED A MISTAKE BY TREATING THE BUSINESS GROSS RECEIPTS AS APPELLANT'S INCOME. IT IS CONTRARY TO P ROVISIONS AND SCHEME OF THE ACT REGARDING ASSESSING INCOME FROM BUSINESS. 5. THAT CIT (A) HAS COMMITTED A MISTAKE IN RESPECT OF PEAK CASH BALANCE THEORY UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APP EAL. THE PEAK CASH BALANCE THEORY HAS NO APPLICATION IN THE PRESENT AP PEAL. THAT AO AND CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN DUE WEIGHT TO THE CASH FLOW SUBMITTED BEFORE THEM. 6. THAT IT IS WELL KNOWN AND STANDARD PRACTICE OF T HE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT (SUPPORTED BY CBDT CIRCULARS) THE DEPARTMENT OFFICE RS ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO ACT AS EXECUTIVE OR JUDICIAL OFFICIAL ONLY BUT TO A CT AS BOTH. THAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO HELP AND INFORM THE TAXPAYER ABOUT THEI R RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES WELL WITHIN IN ADVANCE. THEY SHOULD NOT TAKE DISADV ANTAGES OF THE ASSESSEE. THAT ALL GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE T O EACH OTHER. 3. AS PER INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON RECORD, THE ASS ESSEE MADE DEPOSIT OF CASH AMOUNTING TO RS 2,00,000/- AND MADE PAYMENTS T HROUGH CREDIT CARD AMOUNTING TO RS 4,00,000/- DURING THE F.Y. 2008-09 RELEVANT TO THE A.Y. 2009- 10. ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED RETURN OF INCOME. THEREFORE, SOURCE OF DEPOSIT OF CASH MADE IN BANK AND PAYMENT MADE THROUGH CREDI T CARD REMAINED UNEXPLAINED. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED RS. 19,78,500/- IN HIS SAVIN G BANK ACCOUNT. AS HE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT, AN ADDITION OF RS 6,44,500/- IS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCO UNT OF CASH DEPOSITS AS UNEXPLAINED MONEY U/S 69A. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE AS SESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 3 ITA NO. 2393/DEL/2019 5. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND THER E IS NO ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE NOTICE HAS BEEN SERVED TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE ARE TAKING UP THE SUBMISSI ONS OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) AS WELL AS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER . 6. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, AND THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AND PERUSED THE MATERIA L AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT APPEARED BEFORE THE CIT(A) DES PITE GIVING PROPER OPPORTUNITY BUT SUBMITTED THE REPLY UPON WHICH THE CIT(A) HAS TAKEN COGNIZANCE AND HELD THAT THERE IS NO DOCUMENTARY E VIDENCE FROM 18 PARTIES IN RESPECT OF CASH RECEIPTS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. TH US, THE CIT(A) HAS GIVEN THE DETAILED REASON WHILE CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO NEED TO INTERFERE WITH THE F INDINGS OF THE CIT(A). THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 8. IN RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 04 TH DAY OF MAY, 2020. SD/- SD/- (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 04/05/2020 R. NAHEED COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 4 ITA NO. 2393/DEL/2019 ITAT NEW DELHI DATE OF DICTATION 18.03.2020 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 18.03.2020 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE OTHER MEMBER DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. PS/PS DATE ON WHICH THE FINAL ORDER IS UPLOADED ON THE WEBSITE OF ITAT 1 3 . 05 .2020 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 1 3 . 05 .2020 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