DEEPAK SITARAM NETKE, MUMBAI V. ITO 25(1)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 3854/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9414 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 12-07-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 06-06-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAM TIWARI
• Keywords: Gift; Salary income; Peak credit; Source of fund

Judgement Text

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN (AM) I.T.A. NO. 3854 /MUM/ 2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 09 - 1 0 ) SHRI DEEPAK SITARAM NETKE SHIVAJI NAGAR, KASTUR PARK SHIMPOLI ROAD, BORIWALI W MUMBAI - 400 092. PAN : ADZPN6732A V S. ITO WARD 25(1)(4) ROOM NO. C - 10 3 RD FLOOR PRATYAKSHAKAR BHAVAN, BKC BANDRA E MUMBAI - 400 051. ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY NONE DEPARTMENT BY SHRI RAM TIWARI DATE OF HEARING 1 8 .9. 201 7 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 18 . 9 . 201 7 O R D E R THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25 - 02 - 2016 PASSED BY LD CIT(A) - 44, MUMBAI AND IT RELATES TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE DECISION OF THE AO IN PARTIALLY CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MAD E BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER RELATING TO DEPOSITS FOUND IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE APPEAL IS BARRED BY LIMITATION BY 24 DAYS. THE ASSESSEE HAS MOVED A PETITION REQUESTING THE BENCH TO CONDONE THE DELAY. I HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE PETITION. HAVING REGARD TO THE SUBMISSIONS MADE IN THE PETITION, I CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THE APPEAL FOR HEARING. 3. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, EVEN THOUGH THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO HIM BY REGISTERED POST ON MORE THAN ON E OCCASION. HENCE I PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL EX - PARTE, WITHOUT THE PRESENCE OF THE ASSESSEE. SHRI DEEPAK SITARAM NETKE 2 4. THE ASSESSEES SOURCES OF INCOME WERE INCOME FROM SALARY AND OTHER SOURCES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT ON RECEIVING INFORMATIO N THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE CASH DEPOSITS AGGREGATING TO RS.22,83,000/ - IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE DEPOSITS HAVE BEEN MADE, INTER ALIA, OUT OF (A) GIFT RECEIVED FROM FATHER - RS.12,65,000/ - (B) FRIENDLY LOANS RECEIVED - RS . 3,75,000/ - (C) CASH WITHDRAWALS MADE FROM BANK RS.10,84,350/ - SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE THE EXPLANATIONS, THE AO ASSESSED THE ABOVE SAID THREE AMOUNTS AGGREGATING TO RS.27,24,350/ - AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD CIT(A) TOOK THE VI EW THAT THE PEAK CREDIT OF DEPOSITS SHOULD BE ASSESSED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY THE LD CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF PEAK CREDIT AMOUNT OF RS.17,55,050/ - AND GRANTED RELIEF TO THE EXTENT OF RS.9,69,300/ - . STILL AGGRIEVED, TH E ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. I HEARD LD D.R AND PERUSED THE RECORD. I NOTICE THAT THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF DEPOSITS FOUND IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WAS RS.22,83,000/ - . AS AGAINST THIS, THE AO HAS MADE ADDITION OF RS.27,24,350/ - O N THE BASIS OF CASH FLOW STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE LD CIT(A) HAS RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO THE AMOUNT OF PEAK CREDIT OF RS.17.55 LAKHS. BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT THE PEAK CREDIT WOR KED OUT BY THE LD CIT(A) WAS WRONG. I ALSO NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM OF RECEIPT OF GIFTS AND LOANS. UNDER THESE SET OF FACTS, I HAVE NO OTHER OPTION, BUT TO CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY LD CIT(A). SHRI DEEPAK SITARAM NETKE 3 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER HAS BE EN PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 1 8 . 9 . 201 7. SD / - (B.R.BASKARAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 1 8 / 9 / 20 1 7 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) PS ITAT, MUMBAI