9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 528X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Officer to delete the amount of Rs.44,28,000/- out of the addition of Rs.83,19,058/- and the balance amount is sustained. The grounds raised by the assessee on this issue are partly allowed. Disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80C 80DDB for want of evidence - HELD THAT:- Undisputedly, the assessee did not file any evidence either before the Assessing Officer or before the learned CIT (A) or even before us for such claim. Under these circumstances, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the learned CIT (A) is confirmed and the grounds raised by the assessee on these issues are dismissed. - ITA No.958/Hyd/2019 - - - Dated:- 11-1-2023 - Shri R.K. Panda, Accountant Member AND Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar, Adv. For the Revenue : Shri KPRR Murthy, DR ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, A.M This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 25.01.2019 of the learned CIT (A)-7, Hyderabad relating to A.Y.2015-16. 2. There is a delay of 61 days in filing of this appeal for which the assessee has filed a condonation application along with an affidavit. After considering th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mined the total income of the assessee at Rs.87,04,060/-. 6. In appeal the learned CIT (A) sustained the addition of Rs.83,19,058/- by observing as under: 4.2 I have considered the submissions of the appellant and The findings of the Assessing Officer in the assessment order carefully. Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.83,19,058/- on the ground that the appellant did not substantiate the source of the cash deposits made in the savings bank account maintained in ICICI Bank, Siddipet inspite of show-cause letter given by the Assessing Officer vide letter dated 22-12- 2017. During the course of appellate proceedings, the contention of the appellant was that the source of the deposits in the bank account was out of trading in gold and silver bars. However, no substantiation was made by the AR of the appellant during the course of appellate proceedings by filing the copies of the sales, purchase invoices in support of the claim. Even before Assessing Officer, the appellant did not substantiate the claim of sales and purchases. Firstly, before the Assessing Officer, the AR of the appellant claimed that the assessee had a fund of Rs.25,00,000/- from the past accumulation/sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng Officer. This ground of appeal is dismissed . 7. So far as the disallowance of Rs.77,697/-is concerned, the learned CIT (A) also sustained the addition in absence of any details filed by her evidencing the investment claimed u/s 80C 80DDB. 8. Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT (A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. The order of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) is erroneous both on facts and in law to the extent it is prejudicial to the assessee. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in treating an amount of Rs 83,19,058/- as income of the appellant u/s 69A of the I.T Act. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in not allowing deductions u/s 80C an amount of Rs 77,152/- of the I.T act. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in rejecting the appellant contention an amount of deposits made into the bank account as a turnover of the appellant. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have considered the fact t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accepted in absence of any bills/vouchers for purchase and sales. Similarly, there is no confirmation from the son of the assessee and his creditworthiness to substantiate the huge cash of Rs.6,24,500/- remained unexplained. So far as the deduction claimed u/s 80C 80DDB is concerned, he submitted that both the lower authorities were correct in making the disallowance since the assessee failed to produce any evidence to that effect. Even before the Tribunal also the assessee has not filed any details to substantiate the deduction so claimed u/s 80C 80DDB. Therefore, the learned CIT (A) was fully justified in sustaining the order of the Assessing Officer on a/c of deduction claimed u/s 80C 80DDB. 12. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the AO and the learned CIT (A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us by both sides. We find the AO in the instant case made addition of Rs.83,19,058/- being unexplained cash deposit u/s 69A of the I.T. Act and made addition of Rs.77,152/- being the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 80C 80DDB for want of evidence. We fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
