Kunwar Amir Ahmed, Meerut V. ITO, Meerut

MA 681/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7239 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 8 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 23-08-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 04-12-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: E V BHASKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: VINOD GOEL
• Keywords: Set aside

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, FRIDAY: NEW DELHI (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA NO.681/DEL/2017 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.635/DEL/2017) [ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10] KUNWAR AMIR AHMAD, 357/11, SHASTRI NAGAR, MEERUT, ITO, WARD-1(1), NEW DELHI PAN-AHAPA5542N ASSESSEE REVENUE ASSESSEE BY SH. VINOD GOEL, CA REVENUE BY SH. E.V. BHASKAR SR. - DR DATE OF HEARING 06.08.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 23.08.2021 ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION BY THE ASSESSEE SEEK ING RECTIFICATION OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL PASSED I N ITA NO.635/DEL/2017, DATED 06.06.2017 FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2009-10. 2. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS AS MADE IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIO N. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL MA NO.-681/DEL/2017 2 HAS NOT CONSIDERED ANNEXURE 12, 14 AND 16 OF THE PA PER BOOK DATED 23.05.2017 AND ALSO IGNORED THE AFFIDAVIT PLA CED ON PAGE NO.10 AND 11 OF THE PAPER BOOK. FURTHER, THE TRIBU NAL HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE ORDER PASSED IN THE CASE OF KAVITA V ERMA. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF KAVITA VERMA FOR THE REASON THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD I N THAT CASE CONSIDERED THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE VARIOUS PERSONS AND SET-ASIDE THE ISSUE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SIMILARLY, IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO FILED AFFIDAVIT WHI CH WAS IGNORED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LEARNED CI T(A) BY NOT CONSIDERING THE AFFIDAVIT BY THE TRIBUNAL IS A MIST AKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. 3. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT E VIDENCE WERE DULY CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND THE TRIBUN AL HAS ALSO CONSIDERED THE DECISION RELIED UPON BY THE LEA RNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF KAVITA VERM A. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RE CORD. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS TRYING TO GET THE ORDER REVIEWED UNDER THE GARB OF FILING OF MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FOR RECTIFYING THE MISTAKE. MA NO.-681/DEL/2017 3 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.635/DEL/2017, ORDER DATED 06.06.2017 IN PARA 5 H AS DECIDED THE ISSUE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 5. AFTER CONSIDERING RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, I DO NOT F IND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN MAKING AND CONFIRMING THE ADDITION. LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE RELIED UPON ORDER OF ITAT DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF KAVITA VERMA VS. ITO DATED 15T H MARCH, 2016 IN WHICH MATTER IN ISSUE WAS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF AO FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER VERIFYING THE FACTS. LD. COUNSEL FOR A SSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO EXPLAIN HOW THIS JUDGMENT WILL HELP THE ASSESSEE. F URTHER WHATEVER CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE NOT BEEN SUBSTANTIATED BY ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD. M ERE FILING OF AFFIDAVIT OF BROTHERS IS ONLY SELF SERVING AND WOULD NOT PROV E ANYTHING IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN MAKING DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT DURING THE ENTIRE YEAR. THEREFORE, EXPLANATION OF A SSESSEE THAT AMOUNT WAS CONTRIBUTED BY HIS BROTHER FOR MARRIAGE OF TWO DAUG HTER AND OUT OF SALE PROCEEDINGS OF POPULAR PLANTS ETC. HAS NO RELEVANCE TO THE MATTER BECAUSE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CONTINUING IN MAKING DEPOSIT IN H IS BANK ACCOUNT. THE SOURCE OF THE BANK DEPOSIT HAS NOT BEEN EXPLAINED. AT ONE STAGE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT WITHDRAWALS HAVE BEEN MADE OUT OF TH E BANK ACCOUNT FOR THE PURPOSE OF INCURRING MARRIAGE EXPENSES. WHEN AMOUNT S WERE WITHDRAWN FOR THE PURPOSE OF MARRIAGE, THERE IS NO QUESTION O F REDEPOSIT OF THE SAME AMOUNT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AS IS CO NTENDED BY LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE. IT IS THEREFORE A FACT THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT TO THE SATISFA CTION OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. AO HAS ALREADY EXTENDED SUFFICIENT BENEFIT T O THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING THE ADDITION ON THIS ISSUE. LD. C OUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT BEING AN OLD CASE, IT IS DIFFICUL T FOR ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL ON RECORD TO EXPLAIN ENTIRE DE POSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT, THEREFORE, ON THE FACE OF THE SAME SUBMISS ION IT IS CLEAR THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT IN A POSITION TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE ITSELF HAS NO MERIT SAME IS THEREFORE DISMISSED. 5. FROM THE ABOVE FINDING, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE TR IBUNAL HAD CONSIDERED ALL THE EVIDENCES AND THE CASE LAW A S RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND TO OK CONSCIOUS DECISION. THEREFORE, THE CONTENTION OF TH E ASSESSEE MA NO.-681/DEL/2017 4 WOULD NOT FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF SECTION 254 OF T HE ACT. HENCE, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE A SSESSEE IS HEREBY DISMISSED, BEING DEVOID OF ANY MERIT. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23.08.2021. SD/- SD/- [PRASHANT MAHARISHI] [KUL BHARAT] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DELHI; DATED: 23/08/2021. F{X~{T? F{X~{T? F{X~{T? F{X~{T? FA FA FA FA P.S P.SP.S P.S COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI