Case Number: ITA 1578/DEL/2020
Appellant: Pankaj Sharma, Gurgaon
Respondent: ITO Ward-3(2), Gurgaon
Assessment Year: 2011-12
Case Filed On: 2020-09-10
Order Type: Final Tribunal Order
Date of Order: 2022-08-18
Date of Pronouncement: 2022-08-18
This appeal by the assessee, Pankaj Sharma, is directed against the order dated 12.03.2020 of the Ld. CIT(A)-2, Gurgaon, for the assessment year 2011-12. The primary issue in this case is the addition of Rs. 8,86,000/- as peak cash deposit during the year, which was deemed unexplained by the tax authorities.
Pankaj Sharma, the appellant, is a resident of Gurgaon. The AO received information regarding cash deposits amounting to Rs. 21,04,600/- in the appellant’s bank account. Based on this information, the case was reopened under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. A notice under section 148 was issued, but the appellant did not comply with it. Consequently, the AO made an addition of Rs. 21,04,600/- for unexplained cash deposits and Rs. 33,606/- for income with TDS deducted but not disclosed by the appellant.
The appellant contested the assessment order before the Ld. CIT(A), who partly allowed the appeal, confirming the peak credit addition of Rs. 8,86,000/- as unexplained income. The appellant then filed the present appeal before the ITAT.
The appellant’s primary grounds of appeal were:
The ITAT, comprising Shri Kul Bharat, Judicial Member, heard the case on 11.08.2022 and pronounced the order on 18.08.2022. The Tribunal observed the following:
The appellant did not attend the hearing, and the appeal was found to be defective due to the short payment of court fees. Despite being given opportunities to rectify the defect, the appellant did not comply. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal in limine on account of the defective appeal but clarified that the appellant could apply for restoration if the court fee shortfall was addressed.
In conclusion, the ITAT dismissed the appeal by Pankaj Sharma due to non-compliance with procedural requirements. The appeal was dismissed for being defective, with an option for restoration if the appellant rectifies the court fee issue. The grounds raised by the appellant were not addressed substantively due to the procedural dismissal.
Order signed by:
[KUL BHARAT] – JUDICIAL MEMBER
Date: 18.08.2022
Location: New Delhi
Manage the increasing number of hearings effortlessly by leveraging the legal AI revolution We are India's Leading revolutionary AI-powered legal platform where you can get enough insights into top cases and judgements.
Research Platform