Case Number: ITA 1134/DEL/2020
Appellant: Smt. Tripta, Palwal
Respondent: ITO Ward – II(4), Faridabad
Assessment Year: 2011-12
Result: 2011-12
Case Filed On: 2020-03-20
Order Type: Final Tribunal Order
Date of Order: 2022-11-15
Pronounced On: 2022-11-15
This case involves Smt. Tripta from Palwal appealing against the order of the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward – II(4), Faridabad, for the assessment year 2011-12. The appeal was dismissed due to the appellant’s failure to explain the source of cash deposits in her bank account satisfactorily.
The assessment was framed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 11.12.2018. The case was reopened based on information that the assessee had made cash deposits of Rs. 10,99,000/- in her bank account. The Assessing Officer (AO) was not satisfied with the explanation provided by the assessee regarding the source of these cash deposits and added the same as concealed income.
The grounds of appeal raised by Smt. Tripta included the following points:
During the assessment proceedings, the assessee claimed that she was engaged in the business of manpower supply services under the name M/s Shree Om Swastik Enterprises and that the cash deposits were from business receipts. She provided a registration certificate from the labor department and a certificate issued by EPF authorities as proof of her business. However, the AO noted discrepancies in these documents:
Given these discrepancies and the fact that the assessee had filed her return showing only salary income for the relevant year, the AO concluded that the cash deposits remained unexplained. The AO added the cash deposits of Rs. 10,99,000/- to the returned income as concealed income and initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(l)(c).
On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the AO’s action, observing that the assessee had provided contradictory explanations for the cash deposits:
The CIT(A) found no credible information to support the assessee’s claims and upheld the AO’s addition of the cash deposits as unexplained income under Section 69A of the Act.
The ITAT, consisting of Judicial Member Shri Shamim Yahya and Accountant Member Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, heard the appeal. Despite several notices, the assessee did not appear, and the appeal was adjudicated based on the records and the submission of the Revenue’s Senior Departmental Representative.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the orders of the Revenue authorities, given the assessee’s shifting stands and failure to provide a credible explanation for the cash deposits. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the addition of Rs. 10,99,000/- as unexplained income was upheld.
In conclusion, Smt. Tripta’s appeal against the ITO Ward – II(4), Faridabad, for the assessment year 2011-12, was dismissed by the ITAT. The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 10,99,000/- as unexplained income due to the appellant’s failure to provide a consistent and credible explanation for the cash deposits in her bank account.
Tripta, Palwal vs. ITO Ward – II(4), Faridabad – ITA 1134/DEL/2020: Assessment Year 2011-12
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