Ghan Shyam Dass, New Delhi V. ITO, Ward-41(4), New Delhi

ITA 799/DEL/2019

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Ghan Shyam Dass against the order of the CIT (A)-14, New Delhi, which upheld the assessment order by the Assessing Officer (AO) for the assessment year 2014-15. The AO had treated a cash deposit of Rs.78,74,870 in the assessee's bank account as undisclosed income, as the assessee failed to provide any explanation or compliance when requested. The CIT (A) confirmed this addition, noting the assessee's lack of cooperation and failure to provide necessary evidence. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the lower authorities' findings and reasoning, except for the deletion of an additional estimated income which was considered redundant.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 113782 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 4 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-06-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 14-06-2023
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 03-02-2019
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business income; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 80C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘C’ : NEW DELHI) SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.799/Del./2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15) Ghan Shyam Dass, vs. ITO, Ward 41 (4), B – 4/71-A, Lawrence Road, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 035. (PAN : AAJPD8487D) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : None REVENUE BY : Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 15.06.2023 Date of Order : 20.06.2023 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT (A)-14, New Delhi dated 03.12.2018 for the AY 2014-15. 2. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are as under :- “1. The CIT(A) has grossly erred on facts and in law in upholding the assessment order assessing the income at Rs.84,83,490/- . The additions made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) are illegal, unjust and bad in law. 2. The AO & CIT(A) has grossly erred on facts and in law in passing the orders without giving a sufficient and proper opportunity to the assessee to be heard. The orders are passed in violation of principles of natural justice. ITA No.799/Del./2019 2 3. The CIT(A) has grossly erred on facts and in law in upholding the addition of Rs.78,74,870/- deposited in bank whereas the circumstance do not warrant the same. 4. That the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the assessee has withdrawn cash a sum of Rs.48,29,000/- which is being used to deposit in the bank. 5. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the various observations made by the AO and CIT(A) are factually incorrect, illegal , bad in law and contrary to facts on record and based on mere guesswork and surmises and conjectures. 6. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred by confirming the disallowance u/s 80 C of the income tax act for the payments made to LIC and other amounting to Rs made by the AO. 7. The additions made and the observations made are unjust, unlawful and based on mere surmises and conjunctures. The additions made cannot be justified by any material on record and additions are also excessive. 8. The explanation given in the evidence produced, material placed that has been made available on record has not been properly considered and judicially interpreted and the same do not justify the additions/ allowances made.” 3. In this case, AO noted that as per AIR information received for AY 2014-15, assessee deposited cash amounting to Rs.78,74,870/- in his bank account. Assessee was asked to explain the source of this cash deposit. There was no compliance. AO treated the entire cash deposit of Rs.78,74,870/- as undisclosed income of the assessee and added the same to the total income of the assessee. Further, AO noted that assessee has shown business income of Rs.6,10,507/-. Assessee was asked to explain ITA No.799/Del./2019 3 the basis of arriving at the business income of Rs.6,10,507/- and the evidences of 80C & 80D deductions. Since there was no compliance AO proceeded to estimate the business income at Rs.7,50,000/- which is resulted in another addition of Rs.1,39,493/-. In absence of detailed documentary evidence, claim of deduction u/s 80C & 80D were withdrawn. 4. Against this order, assessee appealed before the ld. CIT (A). Ld. CIT(A) also noted that there was not cooperation on the part of the assessee and his counsel. In absence of any detail, he proceeded to confirm the entire unexplained cash deposit of Rs.78,74,870/- in the assessee’s bank. Assessee claimed set off of cash withdrawal of Rs.48,29,000/- against cash deposits. However, ld. CIT (A) noted that assessee neither filed the bank statement nor furnished any evidence to establish that the deposits were out of cash withdrawals. Hence, ld. CIT (A) confirmed the addition of Rs.78,74,870/-. As regards ad hoc addition of Rs.1,39,493/-, he held that assessee had shown net receipt of Rs.11,00,000/- and entire cash deposit has already been added and confirmed and held that estimated addition, which is only a source based addition and gets telescoped against the application based additions of cash deposits in bank account, is not required and deleted the same. 5. Against this order, assessee is in appeal before us. This appeal was pending for a long time and nobody was present at the time of hearing. ITA No.799/Del./2019 4 Hence, we are going to adjudicate the appeal after hearing the ld. DR for the Revenue and perusing the records. 6. We note that there was AIR information of cash deposit of Rs.78,74,870/-. In absence of source of deposits, the authorities below have made the addition thereof. We find that the same is quite correct in view of non-cooperation and lack of details provided by the assessee. Further, ld. CIT (A) has been quite judicious in his approach when he deleted the addition of Rs.1,39,493/-. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT (A) and the same is a well-reasoned order and does not require any interference on our part. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 20 th day of June, 2023. Sd/- sd/- (YOGESH KUMAR US) (SHAMIM YAHYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated the 20 th day of June, 2023 TS Copy forwarded to: 1.Appellant 2.Respondent 3.CIT 4.CIT (A)-14, New Delhi. 5.CIT(ITAT), New Delhi. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.