TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 561X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs.2,77,000/- only. Considering these facts, source available to the assessee to deposit into the bank account to be considered around Rs.10,00,000/- out of Rs.11,31,000/- as explained above. The balance amount of Rs. 4,06,150/- to be considered as unexplained and to that extent addition to be sustained. Accordingly direct the AO to make an addition of Rs.4,06,150/- as unexplained income of the assessee. Ordered accordingly. - ITA No. 1123/Bang/2022 - - - Dated:- 17-1-2023 - Shri Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member Assessee by: Ms. Sunaiana Bhatia, CA Revenue by: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel ORDER Per: Chandra Poojari, A.M. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es of funds and hence, the addition made deserves to be deleted. 4, Without prejudice to the right to seek waiver before the Hon'ble DG/CCIT, the appellant denies himself liable to be charged to interest u/s.234-A and 234-Bof the Act, which requires to be cancelled under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 5. For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appellant, your appellant humbly prays that the appeal may be allowed and justice rendered and the appellant may be awarded costs in prosecuting the appeal and also order for the refund of the institution fees as part of the costs. 3. There was a delay of 39 days in filing this appeal before this Tribunal. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. I find that the Assessment Order was passed on 22.12.2017 and the papers must have been handed over to the CA for filing appeal before the CIT(A) in January 2018. It is hard to believe that till January 2022 assessee did not make any enquiry with the CA about the fate of his appeal. It is even more surprising, when it is said that even the CA did not know that the appeal was listed before CIT(A) and was dismissed for non-prosecution. From the affidavit, it appears that it is only the AO who informed the assessee in January, 2022, that the assessee s appeal before CIT(A) was dismissed. It is thus clear that there has been clear lack of diligence on the part of the assessee and therefore the delay in filing the appeal cannot be accepte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his case and admit the appeal for adjudication. 6. The facts of the case are that the AO issued notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 28.03.2018 was issued and served in the case of the assessee in respect of assessment year 2011-12 as no return of income had been filed for the assessment year 2011-12 and as per information available, the assessee had made cash deposits of Rs.11,53,850/- into bank accounts during the financial year 2010-11 relevant to assessment year 2011- 12. In response to the notice issued, the assessee appeared on 05.11.2018 and stated that a return of income has been filed in response to the notice on 26.10.2018. The assessee, an employee of Canara Bank has deposited cash of Rs. 14,06, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndhra Pradesh and earned a net agricultural income of Rs.2,33,000/- in the assessment year under consideration. Further, the assessee received a gift of Rs. 10,000/- from his brother and Rs.1,20,000/- from his father and Rs.1,45,000/- from his father as loan and there was a cumulative earlier withdrawal of Rs.6,23,000/- from the bank account in the assessment year under consideration and this amount is also used to redeposit into these bank accounts and the same to be considered as the source of deposit and the addition to be deleted. 9. On the other hand, the learned D.R. submitted that the assessee has not having enough source of fund to deposit into the bank account. Hence, the addition to be sustained. Thus he supported the orders of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
