TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 785X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d no nexus with the gross receipts. However, when confronted with the cash entries, he could not give any convincing justification. Tax authorities upheld that the cash has been deposited merely to generate funds in the bank account, whenever payments were required to be made by cheque. Therefore, indeed there is no nexus with the gross receipts. The appellant has not produced any material in support to explain the entries of cash such as books of accounts or purchase bills, etc and we find no merit in the Appellant s contentions. There are consistent and concurrent findings of the fact by the lower tax authorities, no question of law arises for our consideration. - Decided against assessee. - ITA 8/2020 & CM APPL. 1166/2020 - - - Dated:- 14-1-2020 - MR. VIPIN SANGHI AND MR. SANJEEV NARULA JJ. Appellant Through: Mr. Rajesh Mahna, Mr.Ramanad Roy and Mr. Mayank Kouts, Advs. Respondent Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing counsel with Ms.Zehra Khan and Mr. Shahrukh Ali, Jr. Standing counsels. SANJEEV NARULA, J (ORAL): 1. The appellant who has been unsuccessful before all the Income Tax Authorities has now filed the present appeal under Section 260A o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ived, he filed the same, declaring his income as ₹ 1,26,999/-. The CIT(A) held that the averments made by the appellant were not substantiated and it was a case where cash had been deposited merely to generate funds in the bank account, whenever payments were required to be made by cheque. No evidence of Kirana business had been presented and no books of account had been produced. Accordingly, the addition made by the AO was confirmed. 4. The findings of the CIT (A) read as under; Findings/Determination 4. The appellant's grievance arises from assessment order u/s 1471144 of the Income Tax Act, dated 22.12.2017, whereby income of the appellant has been determined at ₹ 17,13,000/-. 5. The AO notes in his assessment order as follows- In this case, information for non-filing of ITR for the A.Y. 2010-11 was received through NMS cycle. On perusal of ITS data for the A. Y. 2010-11. It came to notice that the assessee company had deposited cash of ₹ 15,86,000/- in her bank account with The Khatri Co-Op (U) Bank Ltd during the period 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2010. Therefore, the case was reopened u/s 147 of the I.T Act and notice u/s 148 dated 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00/- Assessed at an income of ₹ 17, 13,000/ charge interest, if any, as per Act, issue notice u/s 156 of I. T. Act and ITNS 150, issue necessary forms. Penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) (c) of the I.T. Act 1961 are initiated for filing inaccurate particulars/concealing the income and non furnishing of return separately. 6. The submission of the appellant before AO dated 08.12.2017 as follows- To, Income Tax Officer Ward 59(4) Vikas Bhawan, ITO Delhi Sub: Submission of Income Tax return and Computation and Declaration of Mr. Ravinder Kumar Pan No. BKLPK2219M for A.Y. 2010-11 Respected Sir, With the due respect, ITR and Computation of Mr. Ravinder Kumar (Assessee) for A. Y. 2010-11 for your records. It is clarified that assess not buying any movable and immovable assets like plot of Land or any Building etc in concerned previous year. It is also informed that assess doing business of general store (kiryana items trading) at 49F, Subhash Chowk, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi and nor having any other income other than interest. Balance Sheet and Profit Loss account was not prepared because not required to prepare And B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the averments of the appellant are-not substantiated. This is a case where cash has been deposited merely to generate funds in the bank account, whenever payments were required to be made by cheque. No evidence of Kirana business has been presented. No books of account etc. have been reported. In this view of the matter, I upheld the action of the Assessing Officer and confirm the addition. 9. In final analysis, the appellant fails in appeal. 5. In the appeal before the ITAT, again the assessee reiterated his contentions. The ITAT observed that it is not disputed that the assessee made cash deposits to the tune of ₹ 15,86,000/- during the period 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2010; since the assessee had failed to explain the nature and source of cash deposited in his bank accounts before the lower tax authorities or produce any evidence in the nature of purchase bills to substantiate his plea that the purchases were made through banking channel from the same bank account in which the cash had been deposited, the contention of the assessee was rejected. Thus, ITAT found no justification in the request made by the assessee for remanding back the matter to the file of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
