Manoj Kumar Sharma, Greater Noida V. ITO, Ward- 2(2), Gautam Budh Nagar

ITA 6202/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9642 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-10-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 27-09-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHVANI GOYAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside
• Section: 142(1); 133(6); 201; 274; 147; 69; 148; 144

Judgement Text

PAGE 1 OF 11 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 6202/DEL/2018 A.Y.: 2009-10 MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA, VS. ITO, WARD 2(2), C-470, BETA-I, GREATER NOIDA GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR, GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR, ROOM NO. 404, A-2D, 4 TH FLOOR, UTTAR PADESH-201308 SECTOR-24, NOIDA (PAN: BUFFPS6146D) GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR UTTAR PADESH 201 301 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. ASHVANI GOYAL, CA DEPARTMENT BY : MS. RAKHI VIMAL, SR. DR. O R D E R THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINS T THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-I, NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN REASONABLE OPPORTUNIT Y FOR SHOWING THE CAUSE BEFORE THE AO AS THE ASSESSEE WAS ILL ON THE SAID DAY. FURTHER NO NOTICE HAS BEEN PAGE 2 OF 11 RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ENTIRE PROCEEDING O F THE CASE BEFORE THE AO. 2. THAT THE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO HEARING OF THE CAS E WAS NOT GIVEN BY THE LD. APPELLATE AUTHORITY I.E. COMMISSIONER OF APPEAL IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THE LD. OFFICER HAVE RELIED ONLY THE REMAND REPORT BY ASSESSING OFFICER TO SAFEGUARD THE REVENUE BU T DELIVERY OF JUSTICE NOT CONSIDERED BY THEM AS IT WA S DEEMED AS THE CLAIM FUNCTION OF APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 3. TO MAKE CONCISE THE APPEAL AND BETTER UNDERSTANDING, THE FACT OF THE CASE WHICH CONTAINS THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL HAS NOT BEEN REPRODUCED HERE AGAIN. 4. THAT THE ASSESSEE CRAVES INDULGENCES OF THE APPELLAN T AUTHORITY TO URGE ANY FURTHER GROUNDS AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 5. THAT IT IS PRAYED AND REQUESTED THAT THE APPEAL MAY KINDLY BE ENTERTAINED FOR HEARING WITHOUT PAYMENT OF DISPUTED DEMAND BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARD. 6. THAT IT IS PRAYED AND REQUESTED THAT THE SAID ORDER BE QUASHED OR SET ASIDE AND SENT BACK TO THE ASSESSING PAGE 3 OF 11 OFFICER FOR ASSESSMENT OR A REASSESSMENT MAY BE DONE BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY OR ANY OTHER RELIED IS REASONABLE UNDER ANY OTHER SECTION IF ANY OF THE INCOM E TAX. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL. IN THIS CASE, NON-PAN AIR INFORMATION HAS BEEN RECEIV ED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED CASH IN HIS SAVINGS BANK ACC OUNT OF RS. 32,66,200/- DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT QUOTED HIS PAN IN THIS TRANSACTION AS REQUIR ED U/S. 139A(5) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT ACT) READ WIT H RULE 114B OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1961 (IN SHORT RULES). ON TH E BASIS OF THIS INFORMATION, PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147 OF THE ACT WER E INVOKED AFTER RECORDING OF REASONS AND NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT, WAS ISSUED ON 29.3.2016. BUT NO COMPLIANCE WAS MADE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. AO ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 142(1) OF THE ACT ON 5.8.2016 TO MAKE COMPLIANCE OF NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT ON 22.8.20 16. AGAIN, NO COMPLIANCE OF THE NOTICE DATED 5.8.2016 WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE AO HAS OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS FAIL ED TO FURNISH ANY RETURN OF INCOME IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT OR IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S. 142(1) OF THE ACT. T HEREAFTER, NOTICE U/S. 142(1) OF THE ACT ALONGWITH QUESTIONNAIRE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 4.10.2016 REQUIRING THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLA IN THE SOURCE OF AIR TRANSACTION ALOGNWITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. AGAIN , NO COMPLIANCE WAS MADE IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE ISSUED U/S . 142(1) OF THE ACT/QUESTIONNAIRE DATED 4.1.2016 AND TO PROVIDE THE A SSESSEE ONE PAGE 4 OF 11 MORE OPPORTUNITY, SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S. 144 OF THE A CT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 3.11.2016 FOR FIXING THE CASE FOR 21. 11.2016 AND AGAIN ON 21.11.2016 NO COMPLIANCE WAS MADE. THEREF ORE, AO OBSERVED THAT THE SOURCE OF THE CASH AMOUNTING TO RS . 32,66,200/- DEPOSITED IN SAVING BANK OF THE ASSESSEE REMAINED U NEXPLAINED, HENCE, HE TREATED THE SAME AMOUNT AS UNEXPLAINED I NVESTMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 69 OF TH E ACT AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY COMPLETIN G THE ASSESSMENT AT RS. 32,66,200/- U/S. 144 OF THE ACT R EAD WITH SECTION 148 OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 28.11.2016. AGAINST THE SAID ASSESSMENT ORDER, ASSESSEE APPEALED BEFORE THE LD. C IT(A), WHO VIDE HIS IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 03.7.2017 HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING O FFICER. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS IN APPE AL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 3. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT AO HAS NOT GIVEN REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY FOR SHOWING THE CAUSE BEFORE HI M AS THE ASSESSEE WAS ILL ON THE SAID DAY. HE FURTHER SUBMITT ED THAT NO NOTICE HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ENTIRE P ROCEEDING OF THE CASE BEFORE THE AO. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT RE ASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO HEARING OF THE CASE WAS ALSO NOT GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A). IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(A) HA S ONLY RELIED UPON THE REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SAFEGU ARD THE REVENUE BUT DELIVERY OF JUSTICE NOT CONSIDERED BY HIM AS IT W AS DEEMED AS THE MAIN FUNCTION OF LD. CIT(A). IN VIEW OF ABOVE, HE RE QUESTED TO QUASH OR SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE AO AND SENT BACK THE IS SUES IN DISPUTE TO THE AO FOR ASSESSMENT OR A REASSESSMENT. PAGE 5 OF 11 4. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF TH E AUTHORITIES BELOW AND STATED THAT AMPLE OPPORTUNITIES WERE AFFORDE D BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, BUT ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBMIT AN Y PROOF OF THE CASH DEPOSITS AND UNABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM . HENCE, LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE AO, WHICH DOES NOT NEED ANY INTERFERENCE. ACCORDINGLY, HE REQUESTED THAT THE APPEA L OF THE ASSESSEE MAY BE DISMISSED. 5. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RE CORDS ESPECIALLY THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND T HE PAPER BOOKS FILED BY THE ASSESSEES AR. I FIND THAT AO HAS PAS SED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 144 OF ACT, AFTER GIVING REPEATED OPPORTUNITY BY THE AO AND THE NECESSARY NOTICES ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. HO WEVER, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RESPOND AND NEITHER FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME NOR PROVIDED ANY INFORMATION SOUGHT BY THE AO WITH REGARD TO THE INFORMATION COLLECTED BY THE AO REGARDING DEPOSIT OF CASH AMOUNTING TO RS. 32,66,200/- IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSES SEE. THE AO HAVING NOT RECEIVED ANY RESPONSE FROM THE ASSESSEE PRO CEEDED U/S. 144 OF THE ACT AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT AT THE BEST OF HIS JUDGMENT BASED ON THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. I FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL ON 04.07.2017 WHICH WAS M UCH BEYOND THE TIME PERMITTED IN LAW TO FILE THE APPEAL. THE ASSES EE HAS NOT SOUGHT CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. HOWEVER, I T IS SEEN THAT AFTER THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE NOTICE FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S 271(1 )(C) OF I.T. ACT, 1961 THE ASSESSEE OBTAINED A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THEREAFTER PREFERRED TH E PRESENT APPEAL. HOWEVER, HE CLAIMED NON-RECEIPT OF THE IMPUGN ED ASSESSMENT ORDER COULD BE A GROUND FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FIL ING THE APPEAL PAGE 6 OF 11 BUT THE FACT REMAINED THAT THE APPEAL WAS FILED LAT E. IT IS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO SEEK CONDONATION OF DELAY ON THE GROUND OF NON-RECEIPT OF THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER. CONSIDERING THE TOTALI TY OF THE CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE THE DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL WAS CONDONED AND APPEAL WAS ADMITTED BY T HE LD. CIT(A). IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED RS. 32,66, 200/- IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR RELEVANT FOR AY 200 9-10 AND NEITHER THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED NOR ANY INFORMA TION WAS PROVIDED EITHER U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT WHEN THAT WAS A SKED BY THE AO OR U/S 147 OF THE ACT AND 148 OF THE ACT OR U/S 142( 1) OF I.T. ACT, 1961, THE SAID AMOUNT WAS TREATED AS UNACCOUNTED IN COME OF THE ASSESSEE AND WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESS EE. THE ASSESSEE WHO APPEARED IN PERSON SOUGHT TO LEAVE THE O FFICE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO LEAD FRESH EVIDENCE WHICH WAS NOT BEFORE TH E AO AND THE SAME WAS ALLOWED AND THE EVIDENCE BROUGHT ON RECORD B Y THE ASSESSEE WAS FORWARDED TO THE AO FOR ITS NECESSARY CONS IDERATION AND REPORT. THE AO BY HIS REPORT DATED 26.03.2018 SUBMITT ED HIS RESPONSE TO THE FRESH EVIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE AND R EJECTED THE SAME AND RECOMMENDED THAT THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESS EE WERE NEITHER MAINTAINABLE NOR ACCEPTABLE IN THE EYES OF TH E LAW AND THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT DESERVED TO BE DISMISSED BY THIS OFFICE. A COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE AO WAS PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR ITS RESPONSE AND BY ITS LETTER WHICH IS UNDATED THE ASSESSEE SUBM ITTED ITS RESPONSE TO THE REPORT OF THE AO. THE ASSESSEE RAISED A GROUND THAT THE ADDRESS ON WHICH THE NOTICES WERE SENT BY THE AO BE ING 'MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA, NAI ABADI, DADRI, G.B. NAGAR WAS NOT TH E CORRECT ADDRESS AS THERE COULD BE MORE THAN ONE MANOJ OR MANOJ KUMAR OR PAGE 7 OF 11 MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA IN DADRI AND THE POST OFFICE MIGHT HAVE ENDED UP SERVING THE NOTICES OF THE AO TO ANYONE OF THOSE PERSONS NAMED MANOJ. IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEES AR THAT M ERELY BECAUSE THE NOTICES SENT BY THE AO WERE NOT RETURNED BY THE P OSTAL AUTHORITIES IT CANNOT BE PRESUMED THAT THOSE NOTICES STOOD SERVED UPON THE APPELLANT AND THE SERVICE OF NOTICE WAS COMPLETE IN TERMS OF THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. BASED UPON SUCH LOGIC, THE ASSESS EE HAS CONTENDED THAT THERE WAS NO SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE AC T AND THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS BAD IN LAW. I FURTHE R FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED IN ITS REPLY TO THE REPORT OF THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE CAME TO KNOW ABOUT THE BEST JUDGMENT ASSES SMENT IN ITS CASE ONLY WHEN IT RECEIVED THE NOTICE U/S 274 OF I.T . ACT, 1961 ASKING IT TO SHOW CAUSE VIDE A PENALTY U/S 271 (1)(C) OF I .T. ACT, 1961 BE NOT IMPOSED ON THE ASSESSEE. A COPY OF THE SAID NOTICE WAS PLACED ON RECORD UNDER SELF AUTHENTICATION BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE SAID NOTICE VIDE F. NO. ITO/W- 2(2)/NOIDA/271(1)(C)/2017-18 DATED 04.05.2017 FILE F. NO./PAN/229/148 WAS ISSUED ON THE SAME ADDRESS ON WH ICH THE AO HAS ISSUED EARLIER NOTICES, I.E., MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA, NAI ABADI, DADRI, G.B. NAGAR. ONCE THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES HAVE D ULY SERVED THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AO UPON THE ASSESSEE ON THAT ADDRESS AS ON MAY, 2017 THERE CAN BE NO GROUND UNLESS PROVED OTHERW ISE TO ASSUME THAT POSTAL AUTHORITIES WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SERVE THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE AO UPON THE ASSESSEE ON THAT VERY ADDR ESS EARLIER, I.E., PRIOR TO THE SERVICE OF NOTICE IN MAY 2017. AS NONE O F THE NOTICES WERE RETURNED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES AS UNSERVED FOR WANT OF COMPLETE OR CORRECT ADDRESS THE PRESUMPTION OF BONAFIDE AS OBTAINING PAGE 8 OF 11 IN FAVOUR OF THE STATE WOULD HOLD THE GROUND. IN ANY CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED THE NOTICES SENT BY THE AO ON THAT SAME ADDRESS AS LATE AS MAY 2017 AND IT CANNOT CLAIM THA T THE ADDRESS WAS INCORRECT OR INCOMPLETE. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE AD MISSION OF THE ASSESSEE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT DID N OT RECEIVE THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE AO BECAUSE OF THE ADDRESS ON W HICH THE SAID NOTICES WERE SENT BY THE AO WAS EITHER INCOMPLETE OR I NCORRECT WAS NOT TENABLE. AS THE GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE THA T IT DID NOT RECEIVE ANY OF THE NOTICES AS ISSUED BY THE AO BECA USE OF THE INCORRECT OR INCOMPLETE ADDRESS USED BY THE AO IS INC ORRECT AND NOT MAINTAINABLE IN LAW AS THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED NO TICE ON THE SAME ADDRESS AS LATE AS MAY 2017 THE ONLY ISSUE THAT NEE DS TO BE CONSIDERED IS WHETHER THE SERVICE OF NOTICE BY THE AO CAN BE HELD TO BE COMPLETE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 282 OF I. T. ACT, 1961 AS IN THAT CASE THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION BY THE A O BOTH U/S 147 AS WELL AS U/S 144 OF I.T. ACT, 1961 WAS CORRECT. THE P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 282 OF I.T. ACT, 1961 REQUIRE THAT ANY NOTIC E SENT TO THE ASSESSEE IS TO BE SENT BY POST OR SUCH COURIER SERVICE AS APPROVED BY THE BOARD OR IN THE MANNER AS PROVIDED UNDER THE CPC 190 8 OR IN THE FORM OF ANY ELECTRONIC RECORD AS PROVIDED IN CHAPTER IV OF THE I.T. ACT, 2000 OR BY ANY OTHER MEANS OR TRANSMISSION OR DOCUMEN TS AS PROVIDED BY THE BOARD. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE AO HA S ISSUED THE NOTICE ON THE ADDRESS ON WHICH THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES WERE ABLE TO LOCATE THE ASSESSEE AND ON WHICH THE POSTAL AUTHORIT IES HAVE ALSO SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE A O. THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE AO WAS NEVER RETURNED BY THE POSTAL AUT HORITIES FOR BEING UNSERVED AND WHICH IS THE STANDARD PROCEDURE IN CASE THE POSTAL PAGE 9 OF 11 AUTHORITIES WERE UNABLE TO EITHER LOCATE THE ADDRESSEE OR TO SERVE UPON THE ADDRESSEE IF THE ADDRESSEE WAS LOCATED THE PACKET HANDED OVER TO THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES AND THEREFORE THE INHE RENT PRESUMPTION UNDER ARTICLE 12 OF THE CONSTITUTION REGARDING THE B ONAFIDE OF THE STATE ACTION WOULD APPLY AS THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES BEING THE INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE STATE HAS NO REASON NOT TO S ERVE THE NOTICES AS ISSUED BY THE AO UPON THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE SERVICE OF THE NOTICE AS ISSUED BY THE AO WAS RIGHTLY HELD TO BE C OMPLETE. ONCE THE NOTICE U/S 148 OF I.T. ACT, 1961 IS DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE IN TERMS OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 282 OF I.T. ACT, 1 961, THE AO WAS WELL WITHIN THE JURISDICTION CONFERRED UPON HIM TO FRA ME THE REASSESSMENT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147 OF I. T. ACT, 1961. ONCE THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AO U/S 144 OF I.T. A CT 1961 WAS ALSO DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE IN TERMS OF THE PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 282 OF I.T. ACT, 1961. THE AO WAS WELL WITHIN THE J URISDICTION CONFERRED UPON HIM TO FRAME THE REASSESSMENT TO THE BES T OF HIS JUDGMENT. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE VALID SERVICE OF NOTICE IN TERMS OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 282 OF I.T. ACT, 1961 THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER CANNOT BE FAULTED WITH AND UPHOLDING OF THIS ACTION BY THE AO IS CORRECT ONE. HENCE, I UPHOLD THE ACTION OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ON THE ISSUE OF NOTICE AND REJECT THE G ROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 5.1 AS REGARDS MERIT OF THE CASE IS CONCERNED, I FIND THAT AO IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS IN ITS REMAND REPORT VERY SP ECIFICALLY POINTED OUT THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 32,66,200/- WAS DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BANK ACCOUNT DURING THE PREVIOUS YE AR 2008-09 WHILE THE SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY WHICH HAS BEEN CLAIMED BY THE PAGE 10 OF 11 ASSESSEE TO BE THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT TOOK PLAC E MUCH EARLIER ON 23.08.2006 WHICH WAS SEPARATED FROM THE PERIOD OF CA SH DEPOSIT BY ALMOST 2 YEARS. FURTHER, THE AO HAS BROUGHT ON RECORD THAT ONE OF THE PROPERTIES SOLD FETCHED ONLY RS. 11,30,000/- OF WHICH ONLY 1/6TH WAS THE SHARE OF THE ASSESSEE BEING A CO-OWNER OF 1/ 6TH OF THE SAID PROPERTY AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE GOT ON LY RS. 1,88,330/- OUT OF THE SAID SALE OF THE IMMOVABL E PROPERTY. THE OTHER TRANSACTION OF SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY WAS BY THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE SMT. BHAVNA SHARMA AND WAS FOR RS. 6,46,000/ - ONLY. EVEN IF IT IS ASSUMED FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT BUT WITHOUT CONCEDING ANYTHING THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT WHICH WAS AVAILABLE WIT H THE ASSESSE AND HIS WIFE AS PER THE EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT WAS RS. 8,34,330/- WHEN THE CASH DEPOSITED BY THE ASSE SSEE IN ITS BANK ACCOUNT WAS RS. 32,66,200/-. FURTHER, THE RECEIPT OF CASH FROM THE TRANSACTIONS OF SALE OF PROPERTY AND THE DEPOSIT OF CA SH IN THE BANK ACCOUNT IS SEPARATED IN TIME BY ALMOST 2 YEARS. TH E ASSESSEE HAS BROUGHT NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE CASH WHICH WAS RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT AND THE WIFE OF THE APPELLANT REMA INED AVAILABLE WITH THE APPELLANT THROUGH THE INTERVENING PERIOD OF 2 YE ARS AND WAS UTILIZED FOR DEPOSITING RS. 32,66,200/- IN ITS BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO BROUGHT NOTHING ON RECORD TO EXPLAI N THE SOURCE OF REMAINING AMOUNT OF CASH OR RS. 24,31,870/- WHICH WA S FOUND BY THE AO TO HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF TH E ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IS NEITHER TENABLE NOR ACCEPTABLE. THEREFORE THE SAME WAS RIGHTLY REJECTED AND ACTION OF THE AO WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD . CIT(A), PAGE 11 OF 11 WHICH DOES NOT NEED ANY INTERFERENCE ON MY PART, HE NCE, I UPHOLD THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) OF AFFIRMING THE ADDITI ON IN DISPUTE AND ACCORDINGLY REJECT THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE . 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 03-10-2019. SD/- [H.S. SIDHU] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE:03/10/2019 SRB COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4.CIT (A) 5. DR , ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES