9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 1212X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case for deletion of impugned addition, hence no interference is called for in the order of learned CIT ( Appeals ) . Grounds raised in this appeal are dismissed. - ITA No. 247/DEL/2021 - - - Dated:- 27-4-2023 - SHRI KUL BHARAT , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For the Assessee : Sh. Neeraj Mangal , CA For the Department : Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari , CIT ( DR ) ORDER PER KUL BHARAT , JM : This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi, dated 30.09.2020, pertaining to the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g such addition on the ground that there was no incriminating material related to this expenditure. 3. Facts, in brief, are that the assessee filed her return of income on 30.07.2017 at INR 9,31,200/-. A search seizure operation was carried out by the Revenue. The assessee s residential premises at 151-152, Deepali Enclave Pitampura, New Delhi was also covered in the search operation carried out u/s 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act . Thereafter the Assessing Officer issued a notice u/s 153A of the Act on 29.3.2019. In response thereof the assessee filed return of income declaring income at Rs. 9,39,600/- on 29.08.2019. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer proceeded to frame the impugned assessment. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e veracity of the claim made before lower authorities. 6. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the learned CIT(Appeals) has given a finding on fact by observing as under: 6. Regarding the cash expenses of Rs. 3,32,313/-, the appellant had explained that these cash expenses have been made on 2.12.2017 and in the chart given to the Investigation wing in post search proceedings had inadvertent error of including this amount in the F.Y. 2016-17 instead of 2017-18. It is observed that the construction of the house was completed in FY 2016-17 as no other expense either in cash or cheque had been claimed in any of the partners beyond this period. The appellant had initially given the ye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. The above finding on fact clearly mentioned that the assessee failed to establish the source of cash. Moreover, the assessee did not file any representation before the Revenue authorities regarding typographical error. It is evident from the records that the learned CIT(Appeals) has given a finding about bank withdrawal and and deleted part of addition after considering the same. Thereby, he partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. It is not the case where the learned CIT(Appeals) sustained the addition without considering the material available on record. Therefore, looking to the facts of the present case at this stage the assessee has not made out any case for deletion of impugned addition, hence no interference is called for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
