IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH AHMEDABAD (BEFORE S/SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JM AND D. C. AGRAWAL , AM) ITA NO.873/AHD/2004 A. Y.: 1999-2000 SHRI SHAILESH KANTILAL CHOKSHI, PROP. S. K. JEWELLERS, GHADIALI POLE, MANVI, BARODA VS THE D. C. I. T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, RACE COUSE, BARODA PA NO. ABDPC 8927 B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI S. N. SOPARKAR, AR RESPONDENT BY SHRI H. K. LAL, DR O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-IV , AHMEDABAD DATED 29 TH DECEMBER, 2003, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000, CHALLENGING THE CONFIRMING OF THE ADDITION OF RS.1, 00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF CASH CREDIT. 2. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE AO SCRUTINIZED THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOTICED THE FOL LOWING CASH CREDITS: 1. GIFT RS. 29,350/- 2. CASH RS.1,00,000/- 3. SHOP BUILDING RS. 87,011/- TOTAL RS.2,16,361/- THE LEARNED CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.29,35 0/- AS WELL AS ADDITION OF RS.87,011/-. HOWEVER, WITH REGARD TO AD DITION OF ITA NO.873/AHD/2004 SHRI SHAILESH KANTILAL CHOKSHI VS DCIT, CC-1, BAROD A 2 RS.1,00,000/- WHICH IS UNDER CHALLENGE, THE ASSESSE E SUBMITTED THAT THIS AMOUNT WAS BROUGHT IN CASH IN THE BOOKS OF ACC OUNTS AND SUCH CASH WAS BROUGHT OUT FROM VARIOUS BANK DEPOSITS HEL D BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS NAME AND ALSO IN THE NAME OF HIS FA MILY MEMBERS, THEREFORE, ADDITION OF RS.1,00,000/- MAY BE DELETED . THE LEARNED CIT(A) NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO GIVE A NY EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM THAT AMOUNT OF RS.1,00,000/- IS BROUGHT OUT FROM VARIOUS BANK DEPOSITS HELD BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS. ADDITION WAS ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED. 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND S UBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE EXPLANATION ABOUT THE INTRODUCTIO N OF THE CASH; THEREFORE, ADDITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE IN TH E MATTER. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS O F THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LE ARNED CIT(A). ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY RELEVA NT DETAILS BEFORE THE AO. CERTAIN DETAILS WERE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE L EARNED CIT(A) EXPLAINING THAT DUE TO DISTURBANCE IN THE CITY, THE DETAILS ASKED FOR BY THE AO COULD NOT BE FURNISHED. THE LEARNED CIT(A) C ONSIDERING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD DELETED TWO OF THE ADDITIONS NOT ED ABOVE BUT WITH REGARD TO ADDITION OF RS.1,00,000/- NO EVIDENCE WAS FURNISHED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AMO UNT OF RS.1,00,000/- WAS BROUGHT OUT FROM VARIOUS BANK DEP OSITS HELD BY THE ITA NO.873/AHD/2004 SHRI SHAILESH KANTILAL CHOKSHI VS DCIT, CC-1, BAROD A 3 ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS. SAME IS THE POSITI ON BEFORE US AND NO EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL IS PRODUCED BEFORE US I N SUPPORT OF THE ABOVE CONTENTIONS RAISED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BEL OW. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL ON RECORD IN SUPPORT OF THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE FOR INTRODUCTION OF UNEXPLAINE D CASH OF RS.1,00,000/-. THERE IS NO MERIT IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SAME ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 5. CHARGING OF INTEREST IS MANDATORY AND IS CONSEQU ENTIAL IN NATURE AND IS REJECTED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 01-07-2011 SD/- SD/- (D. C. AGRAWAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE : 01-07-2011 LAKSHMIKANT/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER D Y. REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD