AMANDEEP DILIP ARORA, MUMBAI V. ACIT 17(2), MUMBAI

ITA 6689/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4634 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 11 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 05-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NEHA THAKURDR
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BE NCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM ITA. 6689/MUM/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 SHRI AMANDEEP DILIP ARORA B-3, RUSTOM MANSION, 562 ADENWALAL ROAD, MATUNGA MUMBAI-400 019. VS. ACIT-17(2) C-10, PRATYAKSHAKAR BHAVAN BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA EAST MUMBAI-400 051. PAN : A IOPD 5775 B ( APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY MS. NEHA THAKUR-DR DATE OF HEARING 11/10/2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 17/10/2018 O R D E R PER RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14/08/2014 OF CIT(A)-29, MUMBAI FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY ) 2010-11. 2.THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS.25,65,000.00 BY CIT(A) AS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (A.O) U/S. 68 OF THE ACT. 3.AT THE OUTSET WE WOULD LIKE TO MENTION THAT AT TH E TIME WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED UP FOR HEARING NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR HIS AUTHORISED REP RESENTATIVE (A.R) WAS PRESENT TO ATTEND THE HEARING NOR ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. WE NOTE FROM ORDER SHEET ENTRIES THAT CASE OF THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN ADJOURNE D FOUR TIMES PRIOR TO THIS DATE AND ON NONE OF THE DATES NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR HIS AR ATTEND ED THE PROCEEDINGS DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE THROUGH RPAD. INITIALLY THE CASE WAS FIXED F OR HEARING ON 12/06/2017 AND THEREAFTER ADJOURNED TO 16/10/2017, 23/04/2018 AND TO 06/09/ 2018. FROM THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE ITA NO.6689/M/2014 SHRI AMANDEEP DILIP ARORA 2 IT IS CLEAR THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT VERY INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEAL. WE ARE, THEREFORE, PROCEEDING TO DECIDE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS AFTER HEARING THE LD. DR. 4.THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE AO MADE AN ADDITI ON U/S. 68 OF THE IT ACT TO THE TUNE OF RS.25,65,500/- TOWARDS CASH DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESS EE DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR INTO HIS BANK ACCOUNT AS APPARENT FROM ITS DETAILS FOR THE R EASON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS INTO BANK WHILE THE AO BRUSHED ASIDE THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SOURCE OF THE CASH IS OUT OF WITHDRAWAL FROM THE SAME BANK. 5.AFTER PERUSING THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND HEARING TH E LD. DR, WE OBSERVE THAT CIT(A) HAS PASSED THE APPELLATE ORDER AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUN T THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AS MADE DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. NOW THERE IS NO M ATERIAL BEFORE US WHICH COULD FORCE US TO TAKE A DECISION IN VARIANCE TO THE DECISION OF CIT( A). THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO DEVIATE FROM THE FINDINGS OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX(APPEALS) AND ACCORDINGLY UPHOLD THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX( APPEALS) BY DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 6.IN THE RESULT APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17TH OF OCTOB ER, 2018. SD/- SD/- (C.N. PRASAD) (RAJESH KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED: 17/10/2018 JV.SR.PS. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT / 2. RESPONDENT / 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / 5. DR A BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / , , . . . 6. GUARD FILE/ / BY ORDER, / DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI.