Shri Satya Pal Singh, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2684/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4776 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 02-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T VASANTHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: K R MANJANI
• Keywords: Business income; Salary income; Corroborative evidences; Revised return; Bonafide mistake; Ignorance of law
• Section: 80C; 139(5); 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES SMC : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.NO.2684/DEL./2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009 SHRI SATYA PAL SINGH, K-34A, KALKAJI, NEW DELHI 110 019, PAN ACYPS5321C VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-22(1), NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI K.R. MANJANI FOR REVENUE : SHRI T. VASANTHAN, SR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 05.09.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 1 3 .09.2017 ORDER THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-10, NEW DELHI, DATED 31 ST MARCH, 2017 FOR A.Y. 2008-2009. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT RETURN O F INCOME IN THIS CASE WAS FILED ON 15.12.2008 DECLARING TOTAL I NCOME AT RS.1,09,610. DURING THE YEAR, ASSESSEE HAS MADE CAS H DEPOSITS OF RS.11,04,100 IN THE S.B. ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH BA NK OF RAJASTHAN LTD., KALKAJI, NEW DELHI. ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FUR NISH SOURCE OF THE 2 ITA.NO.2684/DEL./2017 SHRI SATYA PAL SINGH, NEW DELHI. CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. ASSESSEE REPLIE D BEFORE THE A.O. WHICH IS REPRODUCED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN WHIC H THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT COPY OF THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT IS FILED . THE ASSESSEE HAS CAPITAL A/C RS.10,62,000, PROFIT ADDED RS.1,85,114, THEN, THIS TOTAL CAPITAL COMES TO RS.12,47,114. THE DRAWINGS ARE MAD E TO HIGH FLYERS IN USA IS RS.13,67,750, SCHOOL FEE FOR CHILDREN RS. 40,000 AND HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES FOR THE YEAR RS.1,20,000 AND LIC PAID BY ASSESSEE RS.77,373, THUS THE TOTAL DRAWINGS COMES TO RS.16,0 5,123. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FURNISHED COPY OF THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT AND P & L A/C WHEREIN GROSS RECEIPTS WAS REVISED TO RS.25,01,020 AGAINST GROSS RECEIPTS OF RS.9,25,570 DECLARED IN THE RETURN. THE A.O. AFTER CONSIDERING THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE NOTED THAT A SSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME OF RS.1,09,610 AGAINST GROSS RECEIPT OF R S.9,25,570 AND ASSESSEE DID NOT MAINTAIN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THEREFO RE, ASSESSEES REVISED CLAIM HAS NO BASIS TO MAKE SUCH DECLARATION AS NO DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE SAME HAS BEEN FURNISHED DURING TH E ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE A.O. ALSO NOTED THAT ASSESSEE FILE D REVISED STATEMENT OF RECEIPTS BECAUSE HE WAS NOT ABLE TO JU STIFY THE SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. REVISE STATE MENT CANNOT BE 3 ITA.NO.2684/DEL./2017 SHRI SATYA PAL SINGH, NEW DELHI. CONSIDERED AS REVISED RETURN UNDER LAW. THE A.O. AF TER GOING THROUGH THE BANK STATEMENT, UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT, EXAMI NED THE ISSUE IN DETAIL AND NOTED THE DETAILS OF WITHDRAWAL AND D EPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN APPEAL AND CAME T O THE FINDING THAT SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITED DURING THE MONTHS OF AUGUST, SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER, 2007 AMOUNTING TO RS.3,59,90 0 (RS.2,00,500 + RS.40,000 + RS.1,19,400) IS UNEXPLAI NED AND SAME WERE TREATED AS INCOME OF ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 69 A OF THE I.T. ACT AND ACCORDINGLY, MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.3,59,900 A ND INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS COMPUTED AT RS.4,69,510. 3. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITION BEFORE CIT (A). HOWEVER, ASSESSEE DID NOT PROSECUTE THE APPEAL BEFO RE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) NOT ONLY CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE A.O. IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS.3,59,900, BUT ALSO ENHANCED THE ADDITION BY ANOTHER AMOUNT OF RS.8 LAKHS. THE LD. CIT(A) AT THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE WAS HAVING ANOTHE R BANK ACCOUNT XXX580 WITH ANDHRA BANK WHEREIN CASH DEPOSITS WERE MADE OF RS.5.50 LAKHS AND RS.2.50 LAKHS ON 11 TH APRIL, 2007 AND THIS BANK ACCOUNT WAS NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE A.O. IN CONSIDE RING NON- 4 ITA.NO.2684/DEL./2017 SHRI SATYA PAL SINGH, NEW DELHI. COMPLIANCE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT(A ) ALSO ENHANCED THE INCOME OF ASSESSEE BY RS.8 LAKHS. 4. THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL A ND THE TRIBUNAL CONSIDERING THE SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NON-A PPEARANCE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) RESTORED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE AFRESH. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITION BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER PASSING OF THE ORDER BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE REPRODUCED IN THE I MPUGNED ORDER IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT ASSESSEE HAS D EPOSITED BUSINESS RECEIPTS IN HIS TWO BANK ACCOUNTS AND THE TOTAL CREDITS ARE RS.47,44,000. OUT OF THIS, RS.9 LAKHS HAS COME THRO UGH CHEQUES AS TEMPORARY LOAN FROM M/S. PAL & CO WHO IS A REGULAR ASSESSEE. THE LOAN HAS BEEN PARTLY RETURNED THROUGH BANKING CHANN EL AND CONFIRMATION OF THE PARTY IS FILED. THE SON OF THE ASSESSEE SHRI DEEPAK, A PROMISING BOY, INTENDED TO GO TO ABROAD F OR HIGHER STUDIES. ON THIS ACCOUNT AFTER COMPLETING HIS SENIOR SECONDA RY IN THE YEAR MARCH, 2001, HE STARTED SERVICE AND WAS ALSO STUDYI NG FOR GRADUATION. HE EVEN STARTED FILING RETURN OF INCOME FROM THE F.YS. 2001-2002 TO 2006-07. SINCE HE WAS BACHELOR AND HAD NO LIABILITY, 5 ITA.NO.2684/DEL./2017 SHRI SATYA PAL SINGH, NEW DELHI. HIS CONVEYANCE EXPENSES ETC., USED TO BE MET FROM T RAVELLING ETC., RECEIVED FROM HIS COMPANY. HE HAD ACCUMULATED HIS F ULL SALARY OF SEVEN YEARS, WHICH COMES TO APPROXIMATELY RS.9,50,0 00. SINCE HE WANTED TO GO TO USA AND THE PAYMENT FOR TICKETS, VI SA ETC., WERE TO BE GIVEN BY CHEQUE, HE GAVE THE AMOUNT OF RS.8 LAKH S TO THE ASSESSEE BEING HIS FATHER WHICH WERE DEPOSITED IN CASH AS RS .5,50,000 AND RS.2,50,000 ON 11.04.2007 IN THE JOINT BANK ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE AND HIS SON. APART FROM THIS, ASSESSEE HAD ALSO RECEIVE D RS.40,000 BY CHEQUE TOWARDS HIS BUSINESS RECEIPTS WHICH CHEQUE W AS INITIALLY DISHONORED AND AGAIN CLEARED. IT WAS, THEREFORE, SU BMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS SUFFICIENT FUNDS AND NET PROFIT FROM T HE SALE OF BUILDING MATERIAL WOULD SHOW AGGREGATE INCOME FOR THE YEAR A T RS.3,60,480. THEREFORE, THIS ADDITION SHOULD BE REDUCED. 5. THE LD. CIT(A), HOWEVER, DID NOT ACCEPT THE CON TENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE. HIS FINDINGS IN PARAS 4.1 TO 5 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER : 6 ITA.NO.2684/DEL./2017 SHRI SATYA PAL SINGH, NEW DELHI. FINDINGS : 4.1. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT OR DER PASSED BY THE A.O, ORIGINAL APPELLATE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN APPEAL NO. 124/10- 11 AND THE APPELLATE O RDER OF THE HONBLE ITAT RESTORING BACK THE MATTER FOR FRESH AD JUDICATION TO THE FILE OF CIT(A). DURING THE RESTORED BACK PROCEE DINGS, LD. AR HAS PROVIDED COPY OF BANK A/CS MAINTAINED WITH ANDH RA BANK, THE BANK OF RAJASTHAN LTD. ALONG WITH DETAIL OF TOT AL DEPOSITS AND WITHDRAWALS MADE IN THE ABOVE TWO BANK A/CS DURING THE PERIOD APRIL, 2007 TO MARCH, 2008, ACCORDING TO WHICH THER E WERE TOTAL DEPOSITS OF RS.47,44,0004 IN THE ABOVE TWO BANK A/C S. IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR THAT OUT OF THE ABOVE TOTAL DEPOSITS, AMOUNT OF RS.9 LAC RECEIVED BY WAY OF CHEQUE FROM M /S PAUL & CO. WAS A TEMPORARY LOAN, WHICH WAS RETURNED PARTLY THROUGH CHEQUE AND IT HAS NO BUSINESS CONNECTIONS AND OTHER DEPOSITS ARE BEING CLAIMED AS BUSINESS RECEIPTS. TO SUBSTANT IATE THE CLAIM TO HAVE RECEIVED RS.9 LAC FROM M/S PAUL & CO., COPY OF LEDGER A/C IN THE BOOKS OF ABOVE COMPANY HAS ALSO BEEN FILED. 7 ITA.NO.2684/DEL./2017 SHRI SATYA PAL SINGH, NEW DELHI. 4.1.1. FURTHER, IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A R THAT APART FROM THE LOAN OF RS.9 LAC, ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED RS .8 LAC FROM HIS SON OUT OF HIS SAVINGS FROM SALARY OF 7 YEARS ON AC COUNT OF PAYMENT FOR TICKET, VISA, ETC., FOR HIS TRIP TO USA . FURTHER, IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT AMOUNT OF RS.40,000/- WAS RECEI VED BY CHEQUE TOWARDS BUSINESS RECEIPT WHICH WAS DISHONORE D AND AGAIN CLEARED SUBSEQUENTLY, THUS THE AMOUNT OF RS.4 0,000/- HAS BEEN CLAIMED AS DUPLICATE AMOUNT. ON THE BASIS OF T HESE FACTS, IT IS BEING CLAIMED THAT THE LOAN FROM M/S PAUL & CO. OF RS.9 LAC, CASH RECEIVED FROM HIS SON OF RS.8 LAC AND RS.40,00 0/- IN RESPECT OF DISHONORED CHEQUE TOTALING TO A SUM OF RS.17,40, 000/- ARE TO BE DEDUCTED FROM THE TOTAL DEPOSITS IN THE ABOVE TW O BANK A/CS AND THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS.30,04,000/- IS THE B USINESS RECEIPT ON WHICH BY APPLYING THE PROFIT RATE OF 12% , THE BUSINESS PROFIT COMES TO RS.3,60,480/- AND AFTER CLAIMING DE DUCTION U/S 80C OF RS.1 LAC, THE TAXABLE INCOME COMES TO RS.2,6 0,480/-. 4.1.2. CAREFULLY CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS EMANATED FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND ORIGINAL APP ELLATE ORDER, IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT WHILE P ASSING THE 8 ITA.NO.2684/DEL./2017 SHRI SATYA PAL SINGH, NEW DELHI. ORIGINAL APPELLATE ORDER, LD. CIT(A) HAD SPECIFICAL LY MENTIONED THAT NO BOOKS OF A/C WERE FOUND TO BE MAINTAINED BY THE APPELLANT AND THE ITR WAS FILED U/S 44AF OF THE ACT . IT WAS FURTHER NOTICED BY THE LD. CIT(A) THAT ASSESSEE FAI LED TO EXPLAIN THE BASIS OF INCREASING THE BUSINESS RECEIPTS FROM RS.9,25,570/- TO RS.25,01,620/- BEFORE THE AO WITHOUT ANY SUPPORT ING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. I AM INCLINED TO AGREE WITH T HE COMMENTS OF LD. CIT(A) PASSING THE ORIGINAL APPELLATE ORDER IN APPELLANTS CASE THAT THOUGH ENHANCED CLAIM IS BEING MADE IN RE SPECT OF BUSINESS RECEIPTS, BUT THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE PR OFIT RATIO. 4.1.3. FROM THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE, AS DISC USSED ABOVE, IT IS NOTICED THAT APPARENTLY THERE IS NO CH ANGE IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WHICH WERE BEFORE THE AO AND THE LD. C IT(A) DURING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT/APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. EVEN DURING THE RESTORED BACK PROCEEDINGS, NO PLAUSIBLE REASONS HAV E BEEN PROVIDED BY THE LD. AR TO EXPLAIN THE INCREASE IN T HE BUSINESS RECEIPTS DISCLOSED BEFORE THE AO FROM RS.9,25,570/- TO RS.25,01,620/-, MAINTAINING THE SAME PROFIT EVEN ON THE ENHANCED BUSINESS RECEIPTS. HOWEVER, NOW DURING THE RESTORED 9 ITA.NO.2684/DEL./2017 SHRI SATYA PAL SINGH, NEW DELHI. BACK PROCEEDINGS, THE CLAIM OF BUSINESS RECEIPTS HA S FURTHER BEEN REVISED TO RS.30,04,000/- WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY SUP PORTING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, APART FROM COPY OF BANK STATE MENTS. THE ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULL AND TRUE P ARTICULARS OF INCOME. ASSESSEE DOES NOT GET ANY IMMUNITY OF AN AS SERTION THAT HE IS AN SIMPLE LAYMAN. IN OTHERWORDS, IGNORANCE OF LAW IS NOT AN EXCUSE. 4.1.4. FURTHER, I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH THE COMMENTS OF THE AO WHILE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT IF THERE WAS ANY BONAFIDE MISTAKE IN THE RETURN FILED, THE SAME SHOU LD HAVE BEEN RECTIFIED BY THE ASSESSEE WITHIN THE STATUTORY TIME AVAILABLE WITH HIM AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 139(5) OF THE ACT BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEA R OR BEFORE THE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT, WHICH IS EARLIER, BUT IN THIS CASE, APPELLANT FAILED TO EXERCISE THIS OPTION AND WHEN A O AND ID. CIT(A) DETECTED INFIRMITIES IN THE RETURN FILED, AP PELLANT CHOSE TO REVISE THE FIGURE OF BUSINESS RECEIPTS FIRST FROM R S.9,25,570/- TO RS.25,01,620/- WHICH HAS NOW BEEN REVISED TO RS.30, 04,000/- WITHOUT ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. THE REVISED CLAIM OF BUSINESS 10 ITA.NO.2684/DEL./2017 SHRI SATYA PAL SINGH, NEW DELHI. RECEIPTS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE TECHNICALLY AS PER PROVI SIONS OF THE ACT AND EVEN ON MERITS OF THE CASE AS THE SAME IS FOUND TO BE DEVOID OF ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE. THEREFORE, THE ADDIT ION MADE BY THE AO U/S. 69A OF RS.3,59,900/- IS UPHELD. 4.1.5. FURTHER, WITH REGARD TO THE ENHANCEMENT MADE BY THE ID. CIT(A) IN THE FIRST ROUND OF APPEAL TO THE EXTE NT DEPOSITS AMOUNTING TO RS.8 LAKH (RS.5.50 LAKH AND RS.2,50 LA KH) IN SB ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH ANDHRA BANK, THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.8 LAC WAS THE ACCUMULATED 7 YEARS SALARY OF APPELLANTS SON, THE SAME CANNOT BE ACCEP TED TO, AS THE ANNUAL INCOME OF HIS SON IS QUITE LOW, DETAIL OF WH ICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW : A.Y. INCOME DECLARED 2002-03 RS.51,880/- (INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES ONLY ) 2003-04 RS.64,540/- (INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS ONLY) 2004-05 RS.64,000/- (ONLY INCOME FROM SALARY) 2005-06 ONLY COPY OF FORM NO.16 HAS BEEN PROVIDED W HEREIN THE GROSS TOTAL SALARY INCOME IS MENTIONED AT RS.1,32,400/-. 2006-07 ONLY COPY OF FORM NO.16 HAS BEEN PROVIDED W HEREIN THE GROSS TOTAL SALARY HAS BEEN SHOWN AT RS.1,21,200/-. 11 ITA.NO.2684/DEL./2017 SHRI SATYA PAL SINGH, NEW DELHI. 4.1.6. THE FURTHER CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR THAT TH E SON OF THE ASSESSEE SH. DEEPAK CHAUDHARY HAS ACCUMULATED ALL H IS SALARY WITHOUT SPENDING A SINGLE PENNY IS BEYOND IMAGINATI ON AND CANNOT BE ACCEPTED TO. THEREFORE, IT IS HELD THAT T HE SUBMISSIONS ARE QUITE GENERAL IN NATURE WITHOUT SUPPORTING OF A NY EVIDENCE AND THE VERACITY OF THE SAME CANNOT BE RELIED UPON AND IT IS HELD THAT AN ATTEMPT IS BEING MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO CO VER UP THE UNEXPLAINED SOURCE OF DEPOSIT. EVEN IF THE ENTIRE F IGURE OF SALARY INCOME IS CONSIDERED FOR A WHILE AS THE SOURCE OF D EPOSIT OF RS.8 LAC, THE AMOUNT OF SALARY STILL FALLS SHORT OF THE TOTAL DEPOSIT MADE. THUS IN THE ENTIRETY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, THE SUBMISSIONS AND EXPLANATIONS FURNISHED A RE FOUND TO BE DEVOID OF ANY MERIT AND JUST AN AFTER- THOUGHT T O COVER UP THE ENTIRE TRANSACTIONS FOR WHICH ASSESSEE HAS NO PLAUS IBLE EXPLANATION. 4.1.7. THUS, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT AMOUN T OF RS.8 LAKH FOUND TO BE DEPOSITED IN ANDHRA BANK REMAINED UNEXPLAINED APART FROM THE ADDITION OF RS.3,59,900/ - MADE BY THE AO. THEREFORE, THE SAME IS ALSO BEING TREATED A S UNEXPLAINED 12 ITA.NO.2684/DEL./2017 SHRI SATYA PAL SINGH, NEW DELHI. CASH DEPOSIT AND ACCORDINGLY, AO IS DIRECTED TO ISS UE FRESH NOTICE OF DEMAND INCORPORATING THE ABOVE AMOUNT OF RS.8 LA KH. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271 (1 )(C) HAVE BEEN INITIATED SEP ARATELY FOR THE ABOVE ADDITIONS AS APPELLANT HAS CONCEALED THE TRUE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME AND PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION (1) TO ABOVE SECTION FOUND TO BE CLEARLY APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 6. I HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOT H THE PARTIES. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON GROUND NOS. 1 AND 2 SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE IS A SEMI-LITERATE AND LAYM AN AND HAS SUFFERED BECAUSE EARLIER LAWYER DID NOT PUT-UP THIN GS CORRECTLY AND PROPERLY. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIF IED. 7. THE LD. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND, OBJECTED TO THE CONTENTION OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND SUBMITTED T HAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT RAISED ANY GROUND OF APPEAL CHALLENGING THE ADD ITION OF RS.3,59,900 AS WELL AS ADDITION OF RS.8 LAKHS MADE BY THE LD. CIT(A) LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF THE ABO VE STATED THAT 13 ITA.NO.2684/DEL./2017 SHRI SATYA PAL SINGH, NEW DELHI. ASSESSEE HAS NOT RAISED ANY GROUND OF APPEAL CHALLE NGING BOTH THE ABOVE ADDITIONS. 8. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PA RTIES, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN T HE MATTER. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT ASSESSEE MAINTAINED BANK ACCOUNT WITH BANK OF RAJASTHAN LIMITED, KALKAJI, DELHI IN WHICH UNEXPLAI NED CASH DEPOSITS WERE FOUND AND FOR THREE MONTHS ASSESSEE COULD NOT OFFER ANY EXPLANATION BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ASSES SEE VERY CLEVERLY TRIED TO REVISE THE GROSS RECEIPTS TO RS.25,01,020 AGAINST GROSS RECEIPTS OF RS.9,25,570 DECLARED IN THE RETURN. NO BASIS OR EVIDENCE WAS FURNISHED AS TO HOW THE RECEIPTS HAVE BEEN INCR EASED WITHOUT ANY JUSTIFICATION. NO REVISED RETURN WAS ALSO FILED . IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS ASSESSEE INCREASED GROSS RECEIPTS JUST TO E XPLAIN THE CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WHICH ASSESSEE HAS FA ILED TO EXPLAIN BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THERE IS THUS, NO JUS TIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 9. FURTHER, AS REGARDS THE ADDITION OF RS.8 LAKHS ENHANCED BY THE LD. CIT(A), LD. CIT(A) HAS SPECIFICALLY NOTE D THAT ACCUMULATION OF RS.8 LAKHS WITH THE SON OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN PROVED AND 14 ITA.NO.2684/DEL./2017 SHRI SATYA PAL SINGH, NEW DELHI. SAME CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. THE ANNUAL INCOME OF SON O F ASSESSEE WAS FOUND VERY LOW AND IT WAS ALSO NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE. HIS SON STARTED FILING RETURN OF INCOME WHEN HE JUST PA SSED SENIOR SECONDARY EXAMINATION. THE STORY PROPOUNDED BY ASSE SSEE IS ALSO NOT ACCEPTABLE BECAUSE FOR THE LAST 07 YEARS IF THE SON OF ASSESSEE WAS HAVING CASH AMOUNT WITH HIM, WHY HE WAS NOT DEP OSITED SAME IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AND WHY THE CASH OF RS.8 LAKHS HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL FOR DEPOSITING IN CASH IN THE JOINT ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY ASSESSEE AN D HIS SON. IT IS ALSO NOT BELIEVABLE THAT A PERSON WHO WAS EARNING W OULD NOT MAKE ANY DRAWINGS AND WITHDRAWAL FOR PERSONAL PURPOSE. T HE LD. CIT(A) WAS, THEREFORE, JUSTIFIED IN ENHANCING THE INCOME B Y RS.8 LAKHS PARTICULARLY WHEN THE SECOND BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINE D BY ASSESSEE WITH ANDHRA BANK WAS NOT DISCLOSED TO THE A.O. AT T HE ASSESSMENT STAGE. IF ASSESSEE WAS HAVING ANY LAWFUL SOURCE TO MAKE DEPOSIT IN ANDHRA BANK, THERE WERE NO REASON FOR HIM TO CONCEA L THIS BANK ACCOUNT FROM THE A.O. AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE. THER EFORE, ASSESSEE HAS CREATED AN AFTERTHOUGHT STORY TO EXPLAIN THE CA SH DEPOSITED IN THE ANDHRA BANK ACCOUNT. NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FILED ON RECORD TO 15 ITA.NO.2684/DEL./2017 SHRI SATYA PAL SINGH, NEW DELHI. EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BAN K ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY ASSESSEE. FURTHER, ASSESSEE HAS NOT R AISED ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TO CHALLENGE BOTH THE ADDITIONS. THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CHALLENGE TO THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF TH E CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE, NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE MATTER. THE GROUNDS NOW RAISED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ARE VAGUE AND ARE ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSED. 10. ON GROUND NO.3, ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION UND ER SECTION 80C OF THE I.T. ACT. AGAIN, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND NO GROUND HAVE BEEN RAISED. THEREFORE, IN THE A BSENCE OF ANY FINDING IN THE IMPUGNED ORDERS, THIS GROUND CANNOT BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADJUDICATION OF THE APPEAL. GROUND N O.3 IS THEREFORE, DISMISSED. 11. ON THE LAST GROUND, ASSESSEE SIMPLY STATED THA T HIS INCOME SHOULD BE COMPUTED BY LD. CIT(A) AT RS.2,60,480. SI NCE THE MAIN ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED ABOVE, THEREFORE, THI S GROUND WOULD NOT SURVIVE AND THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 16 ITA.NO.2684/DEL./2017 SHRI SATYA PAL SINGH, NEW DELHI. 12. NO OTHER POINT IS ARGUED OR PRESSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 13. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMI SSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DELHI, DATED 13 TH SEPTEMBER, 2017 VBP/- COPY TO 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) CONCERNED 4. CIT CONCERNED 5. D.R. ITAT SMC BENCH, DELHI 6. GUARD FILE. // BY ORDER // ASST. REGISTRAR : ITAT DELHI BENCHES DELHI.