Cash deposit per se cannot be the income of the assessee and re-assessment proceedings have been quashed - Dheeraj Yadav Vs ITO

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCHES “SMC-1” : DELHI

BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND
SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA.No.6701/Del./2019
Assessment Year 2011-2012

Shri Dheeraj Yadav,
K1-31, New Palam Vihar,
Gurgaon. Haryana
PIN – 122 001.
PAN AAYPY2157N
(Appellant) 

[vs.

The Income Tax Officer,
Ward-46(5),
New Delhi.
(Respondent)

For Assessee : Shri Shantanu Jain, Advocate
For Revenue : Mr. Sri Prakash Dubey, Sr.DR

Date of Hearing : 23.12.2020
Date of Pronouncement : 01.01.2021

ORDER

PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M.

This appeal by assessee has been directed againstthe Order of the Ld. CIT(A)-16, New Delhi, Dated28.05.2019, for the A.Y. 2011-2012, challenging the reopening of the assessment under section 147/148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and addition of Rs.11,07,160/-.

2. We have heard the Learned Representatives ofboth the parties through video conferencing and perused the material on record.

3. Briefly the facts of the case are that proceedings under section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 was initiated on the basis of information that assessee had deposited cash amounting to Rs.11,07,160/- with ICICI Bank and also earned commission payment amounting to Rs.2,533/- from Karvat Healthcare Services Pvt. Ltd., in assessment year under appeal and no return have been filed. The A.O, therefore, proceeded to frame re-assessment for non compliance of statutory notice, non-cooperation attitude of the assessee and passed ex-parte assessment order under section 147/144 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and made additions of Rs.11,07,160/- on account of unexplained money under section 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961 and further made addition of Rs.756/- on account of interest earned. The income was computed at Rs.11,07,916/-. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee.

To know more in details find the attachment file