sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
Latest Expert Exchange
From the Courts »
  Suresh M. Jamkhindikar vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
 Mangammal @ Thulasi vs. T.B. Raju (Supreme Court)
 Mahabir Industries vs. PCIT (Supreme Court)
  Oriental Bank Of Commerce Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax
  Suresh M. Jamkhindikar vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
  Union of India vs. Pirthwi Singh (Supreme Court)
 Cromption Greaves Limited vs. CIT (ITAT Mumbai)
 Director Of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Modiluft Ltd.
 Director Of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Royal Airways Ltd.
 Lally Motors India (P.) Ltd vs. PCIT (ITAT Amritsar)
  Mehsana District Co-operative vs. DCIT (Gujarat High Court)

Girish O Bang, L-59/60, Yogi Prestige 403/404, Yogi Nagar,Borivali (W), Mumbai-400092 Vs. Income Tax Officer 25(2)(4), C-11, Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, lst floor, Bandra Kurla Complex,Bandra, Mumbai-400051
December, 08th 2015
                 ,   "" 
     IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "G" BENCH, MUMBAI

      ..,     ,    
        BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND
               SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER

              ./I.T.A. No.3031 and 3032/Mum/2012
         (   / Assessment Year :2007-08 and 2008-09)


Girish O Bang,                     / Income Tax Officer 25(2)(4),
L-59/60, Yogi Prestige              Vs.  C-11, Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan,
403/404, Yogi Nagar,                     lst floor, Bandra Kurla Complex,
Borivali (W),                            Bandra,
Mumbai-400092                            Mumbai-400051
   ./ PAN :                   AEKPB1072M
      ( /Appellant)                     ..          ( / Respondent)

         / Appellant by             :        None
        / Respondent by :                    Smt.Anu K Aggarwal


                / Date of Hearing                         :3.12.2015
                /Date of Pronouncement : 3.12.2015

                                  ORDER

PER B.R.BASKARAN,AM:

       Both the appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the
orders passed by the ld.CIT(A)-35, Mumbai and they relate to the
assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09.

2.     Assessee is aggrieved by the decision of ld.CIT(A) in partially
confirming    the addition of deposits found in the bank account of the
assessee in both the years.






3.     None appeared on behalf of the assessee even though the notice
was sent to the assessee by RPAD on more than one occasion. Hence, we
proceed to dispose of the appeal ex-parte, without the presence of the
assessee.
                                     2
                                              I T A N o . 3 0 3 1 a n d 3 0 3 2 / / Mu m / 2 0 1 2



4.    We heard the ld. DR and perused the record. We notice that the
assessee could not properly explain the sources of deposits made in his
bank account and hence, the AO assessed the entire amount of deposits
made in the bank account aggregating to Rs.65.14 lakhs and Rs.29.35
lakhs respectively for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09
respectively.


5.    In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT(A) followed peak credit
theory, accordingly sustained the addition to the extent of Rs.10.54 lakhs
and   Rs.12.35 lakhs for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09
respectively. Still aggrieved, the assessee has filed these appeals before
us.







6.    A perusal of the orders passed by the ld. CIT(A) show that the First
Appellate Authority has taken a conscious decision after considering the
entire gamut of facts surrounding the issue. Further we notice that the ld.
CIT(A) has followed the decision rendered by the Tribunal in assessee's
own case in ITA No.4314/Mum/2008 relating to assessment year 2005-06,
wherein the Tribunal had held that additions should be restricted to peak
cash credit. Under these set of facts, we do not find any infirmity in the
order of ld.CIT(A) and accordingly upheld the same for both the years.


7.    In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed.

      Order pronounced in the open court on 3rd Dec 2015.


   Sd                                       sd
( /SANDEEP GOSAIN)                       (../ B.R.BASKARAN)
 /Judicial Member                          /Accountant Member

 Mumbai;  Dated.. 3rd Dec,2015
                           3
                               I T A N o . 3 0 3 1 a n d 3 0 3 2 / / Mu m / 2 0 1 2


.../ 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,
True copy
                                 (Asstt. Registrar)
                            ,  /ITAT, Mumbai

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2018 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Application Management Solutions Application Management System Application Management Software System Application Management Development Application Management Software Development

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions