Tally for CAs in Industry Silver Edition (Single User) Tally Renewal (Auditor Edition) Need Tally for Clients? (Tie-up with us!!!)
Open DEMAT Account with in 24 Hrs and start investing now!
From the Courts »
Open DEMAT Account in 24 hrs
 Sh. Ankit Kapoor, B-102, R.G. City Centre, Plot No. 4, Motia Khan, Paharganj, New Delhi Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-63(4), New Delhi
 Ashish Dham, C-1/2, Safdarjung Development Area, New Delhi Vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Room No.315, B Block, Civic Centre, Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Marg, New Delhi
 Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank, H.O.Near Bajrang Bhawan, Delhi Road, Rohtak, Haryana. Vs. ACIT, Rohtak Circle, Rohtak.
 Arora & Associates Reality Limited, 131, GF, World Trade Centre, Babar Road, New Delhi Vs. DCIT CPC Bangalore
 Kiran Sales Private Limited 12/42, Rajauri Garden, New Delhi. Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER Ward 14(3) New Delhi.
 National Housing Bank, Core-5 A, India Habitat Centre, Lodhi Road, New Delhi Vs. ACIT, Circle-26(2), New Delhi
 Naveen Kumar Varshneya 20165, Prestige Shanti Niketan, Near ITPL, Whitefield, Bangalore Vs. ITO Ward- 7 (3) New Delhi
 AKT Investments Pvt. Ltd., 57, Lajpat Nagar-3, South Delhi, New Delhi. Vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), New Delhi.
 DCIT, Central Circle-25, New Delhi Vs. M/s. HTL Ltd, GST Road, Guindy, Chennai
 Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. Nanauta, Sharanpur, Uttar Pradesh Vs. JCIT Range-3 Saharanpur
 ITO (Exception) Ward 1(1) New Delhi. Vs. All India Fine Arts & Crafts Society, 1-Rafi Marg, New Delhi.

Asif Ali Siddiqui 80/66 A, Near Block, Gurudwara Malviya Nagar, New Delhi Vs. ITO Ward-32(3) New Delhi
October, 05th 2021



ITA No.1066/Del/2020
Assessment Year: 2011-12

Asif Ali Siddiqui ITO
80/66 A, Near – Block, Vs Ward-32(3)
Gurudwara Malviya Nagar, New Delhi
New Delhi


Appellant by Sh. Jalaj Kumar Singhal,
Respondent by Advocate
Sh. Vipul Kashyap, Sr DR

Date of hearing: 30/09/2021
Date of Pronouncement: 04/10/2021


1. This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the
order of the CIT(A)-11, New Delhi dated 28.10.2019
pertaining to A.Y. 2011-12.
2. The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee
is that the CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs.06 lacs,
this regarding the submissions made by the assessee.

3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that during the
course of the scrutiny assessment proceedings the AO was
seized with the information of cash deposit of Rs.2284500/-
in the bank account with Canara Bank. Assessee was asked
to explain the source of cash deposit. On receiving no
plausible reply the AO made the addition of Rs.2284500/-.
Proceeding further the AO noticed that as per Form No. 26AS
the assessee has received professional technical receipts of
Rs.202500/-from Indian Council of Social Science and
Research during the year under consideration. Since this
income was not reflected in the return of income and infact
the assessee has not filed any return of income for the year
under consideration. The AO made the addition of
Rs.202500/- making total addition of Rs.2487000/-.
4. Assessee strongly agitated the matter before the CIT(A)
and contended that the AO has not considered the returned
income as per the return filed pursuant to the notice u/s.
148 of the Act. It was explained to the CIT(A) that the
assessee was earlier working with Indian Council of Social
Science and Research, Government of India and after
retirement has been practicising as Doctor from which he
received cash of Rs.1152635/-on account of private practice.
The CIT(A) was convinced with this reply of the assessee and
deleted the addition to the extent of Rs.1152635/-. The

CIT(A) further deleted Rs.1 lac considering it to be out of past
saving and gifts. Addition to the extent of Rs.1352635/- was
deleted and the balance amount of Rs.931865/- was

5. Before me the counsel reiterated what has been stated
before the CIT(A). It is the say of the counsel that the CIT(A)
erred in accepting only Rs. 1 lac out of past savings when the
assessee is practicing since last 25 years. The counsel further
pointed out that Rs.6 lacs were received as gift from friends
and relatives which have not been accepted by the CIT(A).
The DR strongly supported the order of the CIT(A).
6. I have given a thoughtful consideration to the orders of
the authorities below. The assessee was earlier employed
with the Government of India working with Indian Council of
Social Science & Research. Yet the Counsel pleaded the
ignorance of the assessee in so far as the income tax act is
concerned. By any stretch of imagination this contention
cannot be accepted. Further I find that the first appellate
authority has accepted the profession receipts as the source
of cash deposit to the extent of Rs.1152635/-and further
accepted Rs. 1 lacs out of past savings and petty gifts.

7. I find that the order of the CIT(A) is very judicious on the
facts of the case in hand and, therefore, I decline to interfere
with the findings of the CIT(A).

8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

Order pronounced in the open court on 04.10.2021.

*NEHA* Sd/-
Date:-04.10.2021 ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Copy forwarded to: ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
1. Appellant

2. Respondent

3. CIT

4. CIT(Appeals)


Date of dictation 30.09.2021
Date on which the typed draft is placed 04.10.2021
before the dictating Member 04.10.2021
Date on which the typed draft is placed 04.10.2021
before the Other member 04.10.2021
Date on which the approved draft comes to 04.10.2021
the Sr.PS/PS 04.10.2021
Date on which the fair order is placed before 04.10.2021
the Dictating Member for Pronouncement
Date on which the fair order comes back to
the Sr. PS/ PS
Date on which the final order is uploaded
on the website of ITAT
Date on which the file goes to the Bench
Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk.
The date on which file goes to the Assistant
Registrar for signature on the order
Date of dispatch of the Order

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2021 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Ritz Consulting