TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 830X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... favour of the Revenue - Income Tax Appeal No. - 135 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 14-1-2020 - Biswanath Somadder And Ajay Bhanot JJ. For the Appellant : Shambhu Chopra For the Respondent : Shubham Agarwal ORDER This appeal under section 260 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was admitted on 09.10.2018. by an earlier Division Bench of this Court on questions no. 1 and 2 as framed in the memorandum of appeal. For convenience, the two questions are reproduced hereinbelow:- (1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon'ble ITAT was legally correct in its view that the assessee did not submit evidence or material at all before the lower ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otice U/s 271(1)(b) issued on 22.05.2015 for 28.05.2015. On 27.05.2015 an application for adjournment received. The case was adjourned to 15.06.2015. On the day Shri K. K. Agarwal, C.A. attended and filed reply with computation of income, copy of bank accounts etc. The source of income is income from remuneration, interest from firm and income from other sources. A notice U/s 142(1) issued on 24.06.2015 for 02.07.2015. An application for adjournment filed by the assessee on 01.07.2015. Case adjourned for 17.07.2015 but no compliance was made. Notice U/s 271(1)(b) issued for 18.08.2015 but the fate is same. A penalty for ₹ 10000/- has been imposed vide order dated 28.08.2015 and duly served by speed post. Notice U/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14,32,810/- Assessment is completed on an income of ₹ 14,32,810/-. Issue challan and notice of demand. Charge interest U/s 234A, 234B 234C as per rule. As the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of his income hence penalty proceedings is being initiated separately. Notice U/s. 271 (1) (c) issued. It appears from the above assessment order that the Revenue followed due process of law to its hilt and in spite of granting the assessee several opportunities, he miserably failed to comply with the notices issued by the concerned authorities. As such, the assessment was completed in the manner as stated in the order reproduced hereinabove. The assessee, therea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not been rebutted by the appellant. Under the above circumstances, I am inclined to believe that deduction of the operating expenses of ₹ 5,94,630/- cannot be allowed to the appellant under the provisions of section 57(iii) because adequate evidences for the same have not been provided by the appellant and also because the nexus between these expenses and the income from other sources declared by the appellant in the return of income, has not been proved by him. I also hold that the other two additions of ₹ 1,50,000/- by treating the declared agricultural income as income from other sources, and that of ₹ 1,90,600/-, being cash deposited in the appellant's bank account, are correctly made by the A.O. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al, Agra Bench, is reproduced hereinbelow:- 5 Before this Bench, the assessee has filed by way of additional evidences, salary Certificates from his employees. These Certificates, however, are dated 27.09.2017, i.e., post the passing of the impugned order. They, thus, do not serve the purpose of the assessee. 6. We do not find any error in the order of the ld. CIT(A). The assessee has remained unable to explain the operating expenses claimed at ₹ 5,94,630/-. The break-up furnished before the Authorities below has not been supported by any evidence. 7. Apropos the cash deposit of ₹ 1,90,000/- also, no evidence has been furnished. So far as regards the agricultural income of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
