Need Tally
for Clients?

Contact Us! Here

  Tally Auditor

License (Renewal)
  Tally Gold

License Renewal

  Tally Silver

License Renewal
  Tally Silver

New Licence
  Tally Gold

New Licence
Open DEMAT Account with in 24 Hrs and start investing now!
From the Courts »
Open DEMAT Account in 24 hrs
 Attachment on Cash Credit of Assessee under GST Act: Delhi HC directs Bank to Comply Instructions to Vacate
 Income Tax Addition Made Towards Unsubstantiated Share Capital Is Eligible For Section 80-IC Deduction: Delhi High Court
 Inordinate delay in income tax appeal hearings
 Income Tax leviable on Tuition Fee in the Year of Rendering of Services: ITAT
 Supreme Court invoked its power under Article 142 of Constitution to validate notices issued under section 148 as notices issued under section 148A. However the same shall be subject to amended provisions of section 149.
 ITAT refuses to stay tax demand on former owner of Raw Pressery brand
 Bombay HC sets aside rejection of refund claims by GST authorities
 [Income Tax Act] Faceless Assessment Scheme does not take away right to personal hearing: Delhi High Court
 Rajasthan High Court directs GST Authority to Unblock Input Tax Credit availed in Electronic Credit Ledger
 Sebi-taxman fight over service tax dues reaches Supreme Court
 Delhi High Court Seeks Status Report from Centre for Appointments of Chairperson & Members in Adjudicating Authority Under PMLA

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
                 ,   "" 

      ..,     ,    

              ./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



       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
                                              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

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

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
                               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 2024 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Ritz Consulting