Avail 20% discount on updated CA lectures for Dec 21 .Use Code RESULT20 !! Call : 088803-20003

ICICI

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Assessee pleads for taking peak of the cash credits appearing in its bank account

LinkedIn


Court :
ITAT Delhi

Brief :
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order dated 30/08/2018 passed by the Learned CIT(Appeals)-21, New Delhi [in short ‘the Learned CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2010-11 raising following grounds:

Citation :
ITA No.7063/Del./2018

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC-1’ NEW DELHI

BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND
SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
[Through Video Conferencing]

ITA No.7063/Del./2018
Assessment Year: 2010-11 

Sh. Satish Arora,
C-456, Vikas Puri,
New Delhi
PAN :AAAPA0285D
(Appellant) 

Vs. 

ITO,
Ward-67(2),
New Delhi
(Respondent) 

Appellant by Sh. Dharamvir Taneja, CA
Respondent by Sh. R.K. Gupta, Sr. DR

Date of hearing 07.06.2021
Date of pronouncement 28.06.2021

ORDER

PER O.P. KANT, AM:

 This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order dated 30/08/2018 passed by the Learned CIT(Appeals)-21, New Delhi [in short ‘the Learned CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2010-11 raising following grounds:

1. Ld. CIT(A) erred in facts and in Law in confirming order passed by Ld. Assessing Officer in Completing Assessment as Individual whereas return filed and business done is of HUF and thus Assessment framed as Individual is Bad in Law.

2. CIT(A) Misdirected in Confirming Observations of Ld. A.O. that HUF should have formal Deed HUF should have trade Licence are opposed to facts Law and Circumstances of the case and Assessment framed in Individual Capacity as against HUF is Bad in Law.

3. Ld. CIT(A) misdirected in observing Appellant failed to establish the genuineness of his claim that cash deposit pertained to HUF as no documentary evidence whereas Appellant filed return u/s 44AF. Ld. A.O. completely ignored business done by HUF u/s 44AF and return filed by HUF u/s 44AF at Rs.165571 and completed Assessment as Individual of Rs. 1589570/- treating entire cash deposited as business Income as against Income declared u/s 44AF more than 5%.

4. Case Laws are not applicable to the Appellant case and conformation of entire cash deposits at Rs.1326900/- is Bad in facts and in Laws whereas HUF deposited Rs. 1329600 and simultaneous withdrawals of 1210400 in Punjab National Bank. Net deposit was only 119200/-. Ld. CIT (A) ignored Appellant placed on record Income earned at Rs. 302460/- u/s 44AF from 1985 to 2010 and deposit was only 119200/-.

5. Order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is Bad in Law.

2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that during the period elevant to assessment year under consideration, the assessee was employed with Indian Bank and income was shown from salary and interest. According to the Assessing Officer, an information was received relating to cash deposit in the bank account of the assessee and thereafter satisfaction for reason to believe that income escaped assessment was recorded. The case was reopened in terms of section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) and notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 30/03/2017. During assessment proceeding, the assessee contested that cash deposit was income of his Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) from trading in auto parts.

To know more in details find the attachment file
 

 

Guest
on 09 July 2021
Published in Income Tax
Views : 23
downloaded 5 times
Report Abuse

LinkedIn







Trending Tags