Praveen Kumar Chauhan vs ITO, Bulandshahr: Appeal on Unexplained Cash Deposit for AY 2010-11

Praveen Kumar Chauhan vs ITO, Bulandshahr: Appeal on Unexplained Cash Deposit for AY 2010-11

Case Number: ITA 5752/DEL/2019

Appellant: Praveen Kumar Chauhan, Bulandshahr

Respondent: ITO, Ward-3(3), Bulandshahr

Assessment Year: 2010-11

Case Filed on: 2019-07-01

Order Type: Final Tribunal Order

Date of Order: 2022-05-25

Pronounced on: 2022-05-25

Introduction

This appeal by Praveen Kumar Chauhan, Bulandshahr, pertains to the assessment year 2010-11. The case involves the addition of Rs. 10,00,000 made towards unexplained cash deposit in the appellant’s bank account, which was sustained by the CIT(A), Ghaziabad. The appeal was heard and decided by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench, on 25th May 2022.

Background

The Assessing Officer (AO) received AIR information regarding a cash deposit aggregating to Rs. 10,00,000 in the saving bank account of Praveen Kumar Chauhan during the Financial Year 2009-10. Consequently, the case was re-opened under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. A notice under Section 148 was issued on 29th March 2017 after obtaining prior approval from CIT, Ghaziabad. During the proceedings, the appellant was asked to explain the source of the cash deposit. The appellant claimed that the amount was received as a gift from his father, an agriculturist. However, the AO did not find the explanation acceptable and added Rs. 10,00,000 to the appellant’s income as unexplained deposits.

Grounds of Appeal

The appellant raised the following grounds of appeal:

1. The CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 10,00,000 made towards the cash deposit, as the appellant had duly explained the source of the same, stating that it was given by his father, whose creditworthiness was also explained.
2. The order appealed against was bad in law and violated the principles of natural justice, as the CIT(A) sustained the addition based on personal opinion without judiciously considering the explanation provided.
3. The appellant reserved the right to raise additional grounds at the time of hearing.

Tribunal Proceedings

The appeal was heard by the ITAT on 12th May 2022. Despite various opportunities, the appellant did not attend the proceedings, and the appeal was disposed of based on the material available on record.

Findings and Conclusion

Upon careful consideration of the facts and the submissions of the Senior Departmental Representative (DR), the ITAT made the following observations:

1. The appellant’s father claimed to have given the amount of Rs. 10,00,000 on 28th August 2009, out of income from agriculture and the sale of agricultural land.
2. The CIT(A) observed that the appellant’s father had sold agricultural land on 17th March 2006, making it highly improbable that he would gift Rs. 10,00,000 after more than two years of the sale. The explanation was deemed an afterthought, and no such details were provided during the assessment proceedings.
3. The appellant failed to provide requisite details and evidence to rebut the findings of the CIT(A). The explanation of the cash deposit being a gift from the father was unsupported by evidence of the donor’s creditworthiness.

The ITAT upheld the findings of the authorities below, affirming that the appellant did not substantiate the creditworthiness of the donor. Consequently, the grounds of appeal were dismissed.

Final Judgment

In light of the above observations and findings, the ITAT dismissed the appeal of the appellant.

Order

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 25th May 2022.

Sd/-
[KUL BHARAT]
JUDICIAL MEMBER

Copy forwarded to:

1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(A)
5. DR

Assistant Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

Praveen Kumar Chauhan vs ITO, Bulandshahr: Appeal on Unexplained Cash Deposit for AY 2010-11