9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 857X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ished any piece of evidence or any explanation for the source of cash deposit, we are unable to accept the plea raised by the ld. Counsel for the assessee and accordingly, the plea of the ld. Counsel is rejected.- Decided against assessee. - I.T.A. Nos. 456 and 457/Chny/2019 - - - Dated:- 12-4-2022 - Shri V. Durga Rao , Judicial Member And Shri G. Manjunatha , Accountant Member Appellant by : Shri D. Anand , Advocate Respondent by : Shri G. Johnson , Addl. CIT ORDER PER V. DURGA RAO , JUDICIAL MEMBER : Both the appeals filed by the assessee are directed against different orders of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Chennai dated 28.08.2018 and 27.08.2018 relevant to the assessment years 2013-14 an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es, after considering the submissions of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of unexplained expenses for both the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15. 4. On being aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal for both the assessment years under appeal towards addition made under section 68 of the Act. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has prayed for one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee to substantiate her case before the ld. CIT(A). 5. On the other hand, the ld. DR has seriously objected to the submissions of the ld. Counsel and also submitted that the assessee has not brought on record any details relating to the transactions. 6. We have heard both the sides, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 505 ₹.37,79,500 + IOB a/c No. 901 ₹.47,68,000 + HDFC ₹.22,87,500] and therefore, the Assessing Officer assessed the amount as unexplained cash deposits under section 68 of the Act and brought to tax. 6.2 Since the assessee has not furnished any evidence for the source for the cash deposit and in the absence of satisfactory explanation advanced by the assessee and the assessee has not rebut the averments of the Assessing Officer, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition of unexplained cash deposits for both the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15. We find no infirmity in the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) on this issue for both the assessment years. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee for both the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
