RAJNI GOEL,NEW DELHI V. ITO,WARD-2(4), FARIDABAD

ITA 3019/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Rajni Goel, the appellant, who contested the addition of Rs.12,34,450 to her income for the Assessment Year 2012-13, attributed to unexplained cash deposits in her bank account. The Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward-II(4), Delhi, initially made this addition in the assessment order dated 18.10.2019, which was later confirmed by the NFAC. The appellant argued that the AO in Faridabad lacked jurisdiction as she resided in New Delhi and the deposit was made in a bank in Andhra Pradesh. However, the Tribunal found no merit in this argument, noting the historical jurisdiction based on the PAN and previous tax filings. The Tribunal also dismissed the appeal due to the appellant's failure to provide any evidence or explanation regarding the source of the cash deposit.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 30439 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 30-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 19-06-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJAY KUMAR
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences
• Section: 147; 148; 143(3)

Judgement Text

"1 ITA No.3019/Del/2024 Rajni Goel THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.3019/Del/2024 (Assessment Year 2012-13) Rajni Goel 106 D,Gali No. 11, Govindpuri, Kalkaji, New Delhi – 110019 Vs. ITO, Ward 2(4) CGO Complex, New Industrial Township 4 Faridabad, Haryana – 121001 \u0001थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: APCPG2434D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : None Respondent by : Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 30.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement 28.11.2024 O R D E R PER MADHUMITA ROY, JM: The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 27.05.2024 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, arising out of the Assessment order dated 18.10.2019 passed by the ITO, Ward-II(4) Delhi, Under Section 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2012-13. 2 ITA No.3019/Del/2024 Rajni Goel 2. None appeared at the time of call. The matter relates to addition of Rs.12,34,450/- on account of cash deposit made by the assessee in her savings bank account in State Bank of India. As the source of cash deposit was not explained by the assessee before the Ld. AO the said amount was added to the total income of the assessee on account of unexplained cash deposit which was further confirmed by the First Appellate Authority. 3. The case of the assessee is this that the AO does not have any jurisdiction to issue notice under Section 148 of the Act and the consequent order of assessment under Section 148 of the Act, she resides at New Delhi and cash deposit was made in the bank located in Andhra Pradesh. She neither has any business in Faridabad, Haryana, and therefore, the exercising jurisdiction by the AO under Section 147 of the Act is not sustainable and therefore liable to be quashed. However, the case of the revenue is this that from the history of PAN and from the system it appears that jurisdiction of the assessee lies with the AO having office at Faridabad and further the assessee filed her return of income with AO in Faridabad in earlier years and, therefore, the jurisdictional issue raised by the assessee was found to have no merit by the Ld. CIT(A) which also appears to be correct in the absence of any assistance rendered by the assessee before the Bench. So far as the addition is concerned the assessee has not been able to explain the source of such cash deposit by adducing corroborative evidences and confirmation of such addition is found to be just and proper, so as not to warrant interference. 3 ITA No.3019/Del/2024 Rajni Goel 4. Assessee’s appeal is therefore, found to be devoid of any merit and thus, dismissed. 5. Assessee’a appeal is thus, dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 28.11.2024 Sd/- (Madhumita Roy) Judicial Member Date 28.11.2024 Rohit: PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI "