Utsov Dhowan, C/o PVS and Associates, 57, Patva Chambers, 104/108 Clive Road, Opp. Masjit Station, Mumbai-400009 Vs. Income Tax OfficerWard 19(3)(4), Mumbai.
November, 05th 2015
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL" F" BENCH, MUMBAI
BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.BASKARAN, AM AND PAWAN SINGH, JM
( / Assessment Year:2008-09)
Utsov Dhowan, / Income Tax Officer-
C/o PVS and Associates, Ward 19(3)(4),
57, Patva Chambers, Mumbai.
104/108 Clive Road,
Opp. Masjit Station,
( /Appellant) .. ( / Respondent)
./ ./PAN. :AGFPD7565G
/ Appellant by Shri Dharmesh Shah
/Respondent by Shri Pramod Nikalje
/ Date of Hearing :3.11.2015
/Date of Pronouncement:3.11.2015
/ O R D E R
Per B R Baskaran, AM:
The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated
19.11.2013 passed by the ld. CIT(A)-18, Mumbai and it relates to the
assessment year 2008-09.
2. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of the ld.CIT(A) in
confirming the addition of Rs.17,37,109/- made by the AO u/s 69A of the
Income Tax Act, 1961.
2 I T A N o . 7 5 1 6 / Mu m / 2 0 1 3
3. We heard the parties and perused the record. The assessee filed its
return of income for the year under consideration declaring the total
income of Rs.1,70,230/-. During the course of assessment proceedings,
the AO noticed that the assessee has maintained a bank account with M/s
Axis Bank, wherein he has deposited amounts aggregating to
Rs.17,37,109/- by way of cash and other deposits. The assessee did not
furnish any explanation before the AO and also did not co-operate with the
AO. Hence, the AO completed the assessment to the best of his judgment
by assessing the above said sum of Rs.17,37,109/- as income of the
4. In the appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee's
father furnished an affidavit stating that the above said deposits represent
money given by him to the assessee. However, no evidence was furnished
to corroborate the submissions made in the affidavit and hence the ld.
CIT(A) rejected the same. The assessee also took the alternative
argument that peak amount of deposits should have been taken as
income. The ld. CIT(A) rejected the said contention also on the reasoning
that the assessee did not furnish any evidence to show that cash deposits
were made on different occasions. Accordingly, the ld.CIT(A) dismissed
the appeal filed by the assessee.
5. With regard to the affidavit furnished by the father of the assessee,
we find that the Ld CIT(A) was justified in rejecting the same, since the
contents of the said affidavit was not substantiated with evidences. Before
us, the ld.counsel of the assessee submitted a copy of bank statement
/account as well as the peak credit workings and accordingly prayed that
the peak credit balance may be taken as the income of the assessee.
Though the ld.DR strongly objected to the said plea of the Ld A.R, in the
3 I T A N o . 7 5 1 6 / Mu m / 2 0 1 3
interest of natural justice, we are of the view this alternative plea of the
assessee requires examination. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the
ld. CIT(A) with regard to the decision taken by him on the issue of peak
credit and restore the same to the file of the AO with a direction to
examine the claim of the assessee by duly considering the bank account
and other explanations that may be furnished by the assessee. After
affording necessary opportunity of hearing to the assessee, the AO may
take appropriate decision in accordance with law.
6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as partly
allowed for statistical purpose.
Pronounced accordingly on 3rd November, 2015.
3rd Nov, 2015
(PAWAN SINGH) ( B.R. BASKARAN)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Mumbai: 3rd Nov, 2015.
.../ SRL , Sr. PS
/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. / The Appellant
2. / The Respondent.
3. () / The CIT(A)- concerned
4. / CIT concerned
5. , , /
DR, ITAT, Mumbai concerned
6. / Guard file.
/ BY ORDER,
, /ITAT, Mumbai