ROHIT RASTOGI,DELHI V. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, DELHI

ITA 2519/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves three appeals by Rohit Rastogi, a partner in M/s Pooja Enterprises, against the orders of the CIT(A) for the assessment years 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2017-18. The appeals were consolidated due to common issues and were heard together. The primary contention in the appeals was the addition of unexplained cash deposits and other claims disallowed by the Assessing Officer, which were upheld by the CIT(A). The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's arguments and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, citing the lack of documentary evidence to support the assessee's claims.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 396440 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, CGST Act, 2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MONIKA SINGH
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 132; 153A; 69C; 139; 234B; 133A; 80C

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI KHETTRA MOHAN ROY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.2517, 2518 And 2519/DEL/2024 [Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16 And 2017-18] Rohit Rastogi, 86, Jagriti Enclave, Delhi-110092 Vs Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-14, New Delhi PAN-AIGPR1260D Assessee Revenue Assessee by None Revenue by Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 26.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement 26.05.2025 ORDER PER BENCH These three appeals by the same assessee are directed against the order all dated 28.03.2024 of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-26 (hereinafter referred to ‘CIT(A)’), New Delhi, pertaining to Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2017-18, respectively. Since, the issues are common and connected, hence, the appeals were heard together and are being consolidated and disposed of by this common order. 2 ITA Nos.2517 To 2519/Del/2024 2. Since, the matters are same, we take up the ITA No.2517/Del/2024 as a lead case. The factual matrix of the case is as follows:- “The assessee is a part of ‘Pooja Enterprises group’ Return of income u/s 139 of the Income Tax Act for the year under consideration was filed on 30.09.2014. 2. In the case of M/s Pooja Enterprises a search action was carried out by the joint Director, DGGI, DZU, Delhi (CGST Department) u/s 67(2) of CGST Act, 2017 at its business premises at 5438-39, Basti Harphool Singh, Thana Sadar Bazar Road, Delhi. The CGST team found cash of more than rupees one crore at the premises. In view of this, information was passed on to the Income Tax Department. A search & seizure operation was carried out u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 11.03.2019 in the case of M/s Pooja Enterprises. 2.1 M/s Pooja Enterprises is a partnership fira which was constituted on 26.02.2017 with Shri Suresh Chand Rastogi and Shri Rohit Rastogi as partners having 50% share each. Shri Suresh Chand Rastogi expired on 13.07.2018. Thereafter, w.ef. 18.07.2018, Shri Mahender Singh was admitted as partner having 1% share and Shri Rohit Rastogi having 99% share. 2.2. A locker key belonging to a bank locker number 32 of Sh. Rohit Rastogi (the assessee), maintained with the RBL Bank Ltd was also found and seized. The said locker was operated u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2.3. A survey u/s 133A was also carried out at the office premises of M/s Pooja Enterprises situated at Office No. 23, Hotel Golden Tulip, Business Park, Vasundhara, Ghaziabad, U.P and also at Godown at Basti Harphool Singh, Thana Sadar Bazar Road, Delhi- 110006 of M/s Pooja Impex, a proprietary concern of 5h. Rohit Rastogi, the assessee. 3 ITA Nos.2517 To 2519/Del/2024 2.4. During the course of search and survey proceedings various documents including huge digital data were impounded from the office premises of M/s Pooja Enterprises which included details of 52 entities including that of M/s Pooja Impex, proprietary concern of Sh. Rohit Rastogi, the assessee. Statements u/s 132(4) / 131(JA) of IT Act, 1961 were recorded on oath of many persons including Sh. Rohit Rastogi (the assessee). 3. The case was centralized with the ACIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi vide order of 155/2019-20/526 dated 18.07.2019 and subsequently order u/s 127 of the IT Act was passed on 19.02.2020. 4. A notice u/s 153A of the IT Act was issued to the assessee on 28.01.2020 requesting him to file the return within 15 days from the service of the notice. The notice was served on the same day through email. The assessee did not file his return of income in response to the said notice on the scheduled date. A reminder to file the return was issued to him on 30.04.2020. In response, the assessee filed his reply on 27.08.2020 stating that the original return of income filed on 30.09.2014 may be treated as return of income filed in compliance to Notice issued u/s 153A of the Act. However, the assessee was informed that it is mandatory to file a fresh return of income online in compliance to notice issued u/s 153A of the Act. The assessee thereafter filed return of Income for the year under assessment on 21.01.2021 declaring total income at Rs.4,51,790/- Statutory notice u/s 143(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 was issued on 27.02.2021.” 3. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment by making addition of Rs.9,31,000/- u/s 69A of the Act, Rs.52,124/- u/s 69C of the Act and Rs.1 lakh u/s 80C of the Act as the appellant miserably failed to prove his claim 4 ITA Nos.2517 To 2519/Del/2024 4. The assessee challenged the addition u/s 69A of the Act before the Ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal by holding as follows:- “5.1.1 During the assessment proceedings, the appellant has claimed to be owner of a proprietary concern M/s Pooja Impex and no other business in his name. It is further noted that as per Return of Income filed by the assessee, there was no other known source of income from where the assessee could had generated cash which had been deposited aggregating to Rs 9,31,000/- in his saving bank account as referred above. Further, no details of source of cash was furnished by the assessee which was deposited into bank aggregating to Rs 9,31,000/-. Further, the copy of cash book furnished by the assessee also did not support the source of cash deposited into the said bank account. There were a few transactions of withdrawals from bank but it could not be ascertained that any cash which was withdrawn from bank was the cash which was deposited in bank subsequently. Neither any details in this regard was furnished by the assessee nor any plausible explanation was provided. Now during the appellate proceedings, the appellant submitted that the said payment was deposited out of cash withdrawal on various dates from the same bank accounts. However, the appellant has not furnished any documentary evidence in support of his claim. In absence of any documentary explanation form the appellant, I am of the view that the cash deposited by the appellant remained unexplained and the same is considered as his unexplained money. Therefore, the addition made by the assessing officer on this account is upheld and the grounds taken by the appellant is hereby dismissed.” 5 ITA Nos.2517 To 2519/Del/2024 5. Being aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us by raising the following grounds of appeal:- 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and contrary to the provisions of law, the learned Commissioner of Appeal has erred in law as well as on facts confirming an addition of Rs. 9,31,000/- u/s 69A Unexplained cash credit deposited in bank overlooked the vital fact that the said payment was deposited out of cash withdrawal on various dates from the same banks accounts. 1.2. That the assessment order passed and additions made are arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the letter and spirit of provisions of law. The order passed by the learned Assessing Commissioner of Appeal is bad in law. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Appeal has not adjudicated Penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 being premature in nature and same are also not applicable as when all the material facts were disclosed in the return of income, supported by details/information, audited accounts, other relevant documents filed during assessment proceedings. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and contrary to the provisions of law, the learned Commissioner of Appeal has erred in confirming to charge interest of Rs. 2,39,171/-i.e. (Rs. 35,902/- u/s 234A & Rs. 2,03,269/- u/s 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961). 4. That the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Appeal is wrong on facts and bad in provisions of law. 6. These appeals were fixed more occasions but there was non- appearance from the side of the assessee. In absence of any evidence and material available on record, as placed by appellant to buttress his case, we have no option but to confirm 6 ITA Nos.2517 To 2519/Del/2024 the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 7. The facts and issues raised in the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Years 2015-16 and 2017-18 are identical to the facts and issues raised and dealt in the Assessment Year 2014- 15 with variations in numerical figures. Therefore, our finding given in respect of Assessment year 2014-15 shall be applicable to the Assessment years 2015-16 and 2017-18 in mutatis mutandis, decided accordingly. 8. Accordingly, all the three appeals of the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 26TH May, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- [MADHUMITA ROY] [KHETTRA MOHAN ROY] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 26.05.2025 f{x~{tÜ f{x~{tÜ f{x~{tÜ f{x~{tÜ Copy forwarded to: 1. Assessee 2. Respondent 3. PCIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi "