CC & Sons (HUF), New Delhi V. ITO WARD - 50(1), New Delhi

ITA 6461/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5426 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-07-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 31-07-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 147; 148

Judgement Text

1 ITA no. 6461/Del/2019 CC & Sons (HUF) Vs. ITO IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. _6461/DEL/2019 [Assessment Year: 2011-12 CC & Sons HUF 25/12 East Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008 PAN- AAAHC0012L Vs Income-tax Officer, Ward-50(1), New Delhi APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by None Respondent by Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of hearing 05.07.2022 Date of pronouncement 20.07.2022 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, JM: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-17, New Delhi, dated 21.06.2019, pertaining to the assessment year 2011-12. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law in confirming an addition of Rs. 792434 with the allegation that appellant did not prove the source of FDR amounting to Rs. 792434 2. That Appellant explained availability of sufficient fund out of income 2 ITA no. 6461/Del/2019 CC & Sons (HUF) Vs. ITO earned for 20 years and FDR of 792434 was made out of such savings. Ld CIT (A) confirming the addition of Rs 792434/- 3. Ld CIT (A ) erred in levying interest u/s 234A / 234B,234C as appellant denies its liability for leviability of interest” 2. At the time of hearing no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. It is seen from the record that the assessee has not been attending the proceedings since 04.03.2021 despite the notices sent through speed post. The notices sent by the registry are returned with the remark “not known”. The assessee has not provided any other address to the Registry. Therefore, the appeal is taken up for hearing in the absence of the assessee and is being decided on the basis of material available on records. 3. Facts giving rise to the present appeal are that as per the Assessing officer the assessee did not file return of income. However, as per AIR report it was reported that the assessee had made time deposits with the banking company amounting to Rs. 17,92,434/- and earned bank interest to the tune of Rs.1,15,002/-. Therefore, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) and a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued. In response to the notice Shri D.V. Taneja, learned authorized representative attended the proceedings. The Assessing Officer recorded that the assessee was not able to prove the source of the term deposit amounting to Rs. 7,92,434/-, hence the same 3 ITA no. 6461/Del/2019 CC & Sons (HUF) Vs. ITO was added into the income of the assessee. Aggrieved against this the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(Appeals), who after considering the submissions dismissed the appeal. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 4. The only effective ground is against sustaining the addition of Rs.7,92,434/-. Learned Sr. DR supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the assessee failed to prove the source of investment in the form of FDRs. 5. I have heard learned Sr. DR and perused the material available on record. The assessee has not placed any evidence regarding source of investment made in FDRs even before this Tribunal. The learned CIT(Appeals) has also given a finding of fact by observing as under: “6.3 During appellate proceedings the AR has furnished copies of two bank accounts, one in IDBI Bank and other in Punjab and Sind Bank. From the IDBI bank account statement it is seen that FDR's to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/- have been created in the name of the appellant in the instant FY. The AR has furnished statement of account in Punjab and Sind Bank for the period 2007-08. No details of FDR’s for the balance amount of Rs. 7,92,434/- have been furnished by the appellant. During appellate proceedings the AR has not been able to explain with evidence the source of investment in FDR’s amounting to Rs. 7,92,434/-. Accordingly, I find no infirmity with the order of the AO. Accordingly, these grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 4 ITA no. 6461/Del/2019 CC & Sons (HUF) Vs. ITO 6. The above finding of fact is not rebutted by placing any contrary material on record. Thus, there is no reason to interfere with the order of learned CIT(Appeals) and the same is upheld. 7. In the result, assessee’s appeal stands dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on 20 th July, 2022. Sd/- (KUL BHARAT) JUDICIAL MEMBER *MP* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI