TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 64X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntion with any evidence in this respect. So far as the contention of the assessee about the declaration of income of ₹ 84010/- made by the assessee u/s. 183 of the Finance Act, 2016 and accepted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax while deciding this issue, the Ld. CIT(A) in his order specifically stated that there was no established nexus between the aforesaid cash deposits and said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any Counsel appeared and the case was dismissed for non-appearance. 2.1. However, soon after it, the assessee had filed a Miscellaneous Application in MA No. 165/Kol/2019 in ITA No. 925/Kol/2017 against the ex-parte order dated 03.06.2019 passed by the Tribunal for restoration of the appeal and the Tribunal recalled said order and restore the appeal vide o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 4,20,04,200/- on account of cash deposited into bank accounts by invoking the provisions of section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ii. On the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in stating that there is no established nexus between the additio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... during the relevant period. The cash deposits were shown to be in the name of Chowdhary Associates and Parag Brothers, whose proprietor was the assessee. The return showed only a small income of ₹ 28,000/- from income from other sources. Since the amounts of deposits were so large and there was no reflection of the same in the income tax return, the case was therefore reopened u/s. 147 of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s issue, the Ld. CIT(A) in his order specifically stated that there was no established nexus between the aforesaid cash deposits and said declaration. 7. Since neither anyone has appeared on behalf of the assessee, nor any evidence has been brought on record to substantiate the contention of the assessee, we therefore do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A). 8. In th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
