Rajesh Kumar Dixit, Kanpur vs Assessee

Shri Rajesh Kumar Dixit, Vs Income Tax Officer, House No.K-332B, Ward-4(4), Karampur, Yasoda Nagar, Kanpur. Kanpur. PAN:ABKPD7456Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by None Respondent by Shri Puneet Kumar, D.R. Date of hearing 02/03/2015 Date of pronouncement 16/04/2015

ORDER

PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M.

This is an assessee's appeal directed against the order passed by learned CIT(A)-I, Kanpur dated 30/10/2014 for the assessment year 2010- 2011.

2. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under:

"1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -I, Kanpur has erred in law as well as in facts by sustaining the addition partially amounting to Rs.24,40,500/- as income from undisclosed sources, being the amount deposited in saving bank account, the addition is bad in law and be deleted.

2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - I, Kanpur has failed to appreciate the facts and the explanations filed by the appellant and has therefore 2

erroneously sustained the addition, partially, amounting to Rs.24,40,500/- as income from undisclosed sources."

3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee on the appointed date of hearing in spite of notice and hence, we proceed to decide this appeal of the assessee ex-parte qua the assessee.

4. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the orders of the authorities below.

5. We have considered the submissions of Learned D.R. of the Revenue, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that it is noted by Assessing Officer in the assessment order that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs.28,50,500/- in bank on various dates in financial year 2009-10. He has further noted that the assessee was asked to explain the source of these cash deposits vide question No. 6 of the statement recorded on 21/01/2013. He has further noted that the assessee vide his reply has submitted that the jewellery which was with his wife had been sold from time to time and sale proceeds have been deposited in cash in the bank. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee was further required to produce documentary evidence to the effect that the jewellery was sold and cash received has been deposited in the bank. In reply, it was submitted by the assessee that he has no documentary evidence in this regard. Under these facts, it was held by the Assessing Officer that the assessee could not explain the source of cash deposit in bank and he made addition of Rs.28,50,500/-. When the assessee carried the matter in appeal, the CIT(A) has allowed relief to the assessee of Rs.4 lacs by holding that to this extent, it can be accepted on estimate basis that the cash was explained on account of sale of jewellery and the balance addition was confirmed by CIT(A). In our considered opinion, when the 3

assessee could not furnish any evidence in support of its contention that the cash was available with him to the extent of cash deposited by him in bank on account of sale of jewellery of his wife, the relief allowed by CIT(A) of Rs.4 lac is reasonable and the assessee does not deserve any further relief. We, therefore, decline to interfere in the order of CIT(A).

6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed.

(Order was pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page)

Sd/. Sd/.

(SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) Judicial Member Accountant Member

Dated:16/04/2015 *C.L.Singh

Copy of the order forwarded to : 1.The Appellant 2.The Respondent. 3.Concerned CIT 4.The CIT(A) 5.D.R., I.T.A.T., Lucknow Asstt. Registrar