Puneet Utreja, New Delhi V. ITO WARD - 72(5), New Delhi

ITA 481/DEL/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4377 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-10-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 03-05-2021
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: PRAKASH MISHRA
• Section: 72

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) ITA NO.481/DEL/2021 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2017-18 PUNEET UTREJA B-1/6, RANA PRATAP BAGH, NEW DELHI-110007 PAN NO.ABEPU1160G VS ITO WARD- 72 (5) NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. PRAKASH MISHRA, CA RESPONDENT BY SH. VIPUL KASHYAP, SR DR DATE OF HEARING: 30/09/2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 04/10/2021 ORDER PER N. K. BILLAIYA, AM: 1. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS PREFERRED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC) DATED 05.03.2021 PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2017-18. 2. THE SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF THE GRIEVANCE OF THE AS SESSEE IS THAT THE NFAC ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION O F RS.8 LACS, OUT OF ADDITION OF 16.20 LACS MADE BY THE AO. 2 3. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT TH E RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUT INY ASSESSMENT. THE REASON FOR THE SELECTION OF THE RE TURN FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT WAS CASH DEPOSIT DURING DEMONETIZATION PERIOD. 4. IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED CAS H OF RS. 16.20 LACS. RS. 8 LACS WAS DEPOSITED ON 10.11. 2016 AND RS. 8.20 LACS WAS DEPOSITED ON 11.11.2016 ON THE VE RY NEXT DATE OF DEPOSIT THE AMOUNT WAS TRANSFERRED TO SMT. SANTOSH DEVI. 5. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT AND THE ASSESSEE WAS SHOW CAUSED TO EXPLAIN WHY RS. 16.20 LACS SHOULD NOT BE ADDED BACK TO THE INCOME I N THE LACK OF ANY SUPPORTING DOCUMENT. 6. AT FIRST THE ASSESSEE REPLIED THAT THE CASH DEPO SITS WERE THE SAME AMOUNT WITHDRAWN EARLIER FOR THE PURPOSE O F HIS MARRIAGE BUT THE MARRIAGE GOT POSTPONED. 7. LATER ON THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE CASH DE POSIT WAS OUT OF THE MONEY RECEIVED FROM PROPERTY AS PER THE 3 AGREEMENT TO SELL. THE AO FOUND THAT RS.9971425/- RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES AND, THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF ANY CASH RECEIP T. 8. NOT CONVINCED WITH THE CONFLICTING REPLIES OF TH E ASSESSEE THE AO MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.16.20 LACS. 9. ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE NFAC AND REITERATED WHAT WAS STATED BEFORE THE AO. 10. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND THE SUBMISSIONS THE NFAC HELD AS UNDER :- 4 11. BEFORE ME THE COUNSEL COULD NOT ADDUCE ANY EVID ENCE TO DISLODGE THE FINDINGS OF NFAC ON THE CONTRARY REITE RATED WHAT WAS STATED BEFORE NFAC. IN ABSENCE OF ANY DOCUMENT ARY EVIDENCE BROUGHT ON RECORD IN SUPPORT OF CLAIMS MAD E FOR EXPLAINING THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT I DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE NFAC. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 5 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04.10.2021. SD/- (N. K. BILLAIYA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *NEHA* DATE:-04.10.2021 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGI STRAR ITAT NEW DELHI DATE OF DICTATION 30 .09.2021 DATE ON WH ICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 04.10.2021 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE OTHER MEMBER 04.10.2021 DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 04.10.2021 DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 04.10.2021 DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. PS/ PS 04.10.2021 DATE ON WHICH THE FINAL ORDER IS UPLOADED ON THE WEBSITE OF ITAT 04.10.2021 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 04.10.2021 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. THE DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER DATE OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER