Vivek Chandela, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 976/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8393 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 25-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHAVETA NAKRA DUTTA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES B : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, A.M. ITA.NO.976/DEL./2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-2012 MR. VIVEK CHANDELA, J-11/29, GF RAJOURI GARDEN, NEW DELHI 027. PAN ADSPC3753F VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-62(2), E-2 BLOCK, CIVIC CENTRE, NEW DELHI. PIN 110 002. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : -NONE- FOR REVENUE : MS. SHAVETA NAKRA DUTTA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 01.01.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01.01.2019 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-20, NEW DELHI, DATED 10.12.2015, FOR THE A.Y. 2011-2012, CHALLENGING THE ADDITION OF RS.56,86,720/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS. 2. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME AT RS.2,61,545/-. THE CASE WAS 2 ITA.NO.976/DEL./2016 SHRI VIVEK CHANDELA, NEW DELHI. SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT ON THE REASONS THAT THE A.O. SHOULD EXAMINE THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS IN THE SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT AS PER AIR INFORMATION. THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FURNISH THE REQUISITE DETAILS AND TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOSITS AMOUNTING TO RS.56,86,720/- IN ICICI BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT HE IS A REGISTERED GOVERNMENT CIVIL CONTRACTOR FOR MCD AND HAS DONE THE WORK EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE DEPARTMENT DURING THE YEAR. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE DESPITE GIVING OPPORTUNITY DID NOT FURNISH ANY EXPLANATION/ INFORMATION WITH REGARD TO THE SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE A.O. ALSO OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE MANUFACTURING BUSINESS BUT HE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SAME. THEREFORE, INSPECTOR WAS DEPUTED TO MAKE ENQUIRY AT THE GIVEN ADDRESS. THE INSPECTOR HAS REPORTED THAT NO ONE WAS READY TO TELL WHOSE FACTORY WAS THAT. THE A.O. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO PROVE SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.56,86,720/-. THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE SAME REASONING 3 ITA.NO.976/DEL./2016 SHRI VIVEK CHANDELA, NEW DELHI. CONFIRMED THE ADDITION AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN NOTIFIED THE DATE OF HEARING THROUGH REGISTERED POST WHICH IS RETURNED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES WITH THE REMARK NO SUCH PERSON. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY OTHER ADDRESS FOR THE PURPOSE OF SERVICE OF NOTICE. 4. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. D.R, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NO INTERFERENCE IS REQUIRED IN THE MATTER. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO PROVE SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, AUTHORITIES BELOW WAS JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE AFORESAID ADDITION. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REPRESENTATION FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT, NO INTERFERENCE IS REQUIRED IN THE MATTER. APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 4 ITA.NO.976/DEL./2016 SHRI VIVEK CHANDELA, NEW DELHI. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (L.P. SAHU) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DELHI, DATED 01 ST JANUARY, 2019 VBP/- COPY TO 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) CONCERNED 4. CIT CONCERNED 5. D.R. ITAT B BENCH, DELHI 6. GUARD FILE. // BY ORDER // ASSISTANT REGISTRAR : ITAT DELHI BENCHES : DELHI