KULWANT RAJ, SAHARANPUR V. ITO, WARD- 3(2), SAHARANPUR

ITA 5568/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3017 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 28-08-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES SMC : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.NO.5568/DEL./2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-2016 SHRI KULWANT RAJ, S/O. SHRI MEHAR CHAND, R/O. 12/2054, MIGLANI BUILDING, PURNI MANDI, SAHARANPUR 247 001. PAN ACOPR3072D VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2), SAHARANPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : -NONE- FOR REVENUE : SHRI S.L. ANURAGI, SR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 27.02.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05.03.2019 ORDER THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), DATED 26 TH JUNE, 2018 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-2016. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN NOTIFIED THE DATE OF HEARING THROUGH REGISTERED POST. HOWEVER, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS BEEN POINTED-OUT 2 ITA.NO.5568/DEL./2018 SHRI KULWANT RAJ, SAHARANPUR. THAT TRANSFER RECEIPTS AS PER FORM-26AS WERE AT RS.64,54,570/- AND THE SAME WERE SHOWN AT RS.57,92,014/- AND HENCE, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE OF RS.6,62,583/- AND ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN WHY THE DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT, BE NOT TREATED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE FILED WRITTEN EXPLANATION STATING THAT ALL THE PAYMENTS WERE RECEIVED THROUGH BANK AND THAT VARIOUS DEDUCTIONS WERE MADE BY THE IOC DIRECTLY AND GAVE THE PAYMENTS AFTER DEDUCTIONS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION OF ASSESSEE AND MADE THE ADDITION OF THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE LD. CIT(A) AND NO COMPLIANCE WAS MADE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED AT THE APPELLATE STAGE. THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE ABSENCE OF RECONCILIATION OF RECEIPTS, DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE. 3. I HAVE HEARD THE LD. D.R. AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE IS FILED. HOWEVER, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, NO SPECIFIC EVIDENCE HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT TO RECONCILE THE DIFFERENCE IN THE 3 ITA.NO.5568/DEL./2018 SHRI KULWANT RAJ, SAHARANPUR. RECEIPTS. THEREFORE, THE LD. D.R. RIGHTLY CONTENDED THAT NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE MATTER. I, ACCORDINGLY, DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE HAS NO MERIT AND THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF ASSESSEE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DELHI, DATED 05 TH MARCH, 2019 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 // ASSISTANT REGISTRAR : ITAT DELHI BENCHES : DELHI.