Dhondiram Pundalik Dhule, Raigad V. Income Tax Officer, Panvel Maharashtra

ITA 895/PUN/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5050 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-08-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 11-08-2024
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 28-04-2024
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 139(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.895/PUN/2024 नधा रण वष / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dhondiram Pundalik Dhule, 114B, Gayali Aali, Ram Kadu Road, Mahad – 402301, Maharashtra PAN : BCQPD6127A Vs. Income Tax Officer, Panvel Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 05.02.2024 for the assessment year 2013-14. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under : The appellant is an individual, no regular return of income for the A.Y. 2013-14 was filed under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act. Based on the information available in the AIR with the Department that the appellant made a cash deposit of Rs.40,40,000/-, the Assessing Officer (AO) formed an opinion that income escaped assessment to tax. Accordingly a notice u/s.148 was issued to the appellant on 19.03.2020. In response to the notice u/s.148, the Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Satyajit Mandal Date of hearing : 12.08.2024 Date of pronouncement : 12.08.2024 ITA No.895/PUN/2024 2 appellant filed the return of income on 21.01.2021 disclosing income of Rs.1,35,040/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the AO u/s.144 of the Act by bringing to tax the cash deposit of Rs.40,40,000/- for the failure of the appellant to substantiate the sources for the cash deposit. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A)/NFAC contending that the cash deposits were made out of the earlier cash withdrawals. However, the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC had rejected the above explanation in the absence of any evidence in support of such explanation. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. When the matter was called on, none appeared on behalf of the appellant despite due service of notice of hearing. 6. I heard the ld. Sr. DR and carefully perused the material on record. I find the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.40,40,000/- as unexplained money of the appellant for failure of the appellant to substantiate the sources for the cash deposits made in the bank account. Even before the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC, the appellant had only made a bald statement that deposits are made out of the earlier cash withdrawals. The appellant had failed to adduce any evidence in support of explanation. In the circumstances, the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC had rightly rejected the explanation of the appellant, confirming the action of the Assessing Officer. I do not find any reason to interfere with the orders of the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the grounds of appeal filed by the appellant. ITA No.895/PUN/2024 3 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on this 12 th day of August, 2024. Sd/- (S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; दनांक / Dated : 12 th August, 2024. Satish आदेश क ितिलिप अ ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant. 2. यथ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “SMC” ब च, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. 5 . गाड फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.