Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Kashinath Tapuriah, Kolkatta vs Acit Cen Cir 2, Mumbai on 3 January, 2018
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण,'एक-सद य' यायपीठ,मुंबई।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES "SMC", MUMBAI ी जो ग दर संह, या!यक सद"य, के सम Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, ITA No.1596/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 1996-97 Kashinath Tapuriah, ACIT, 9, Rowdon Street, Flat No.20, बनाम/ Central Circle-2 5th Floor Udyanchal Building, Mumbai Kolkata-700017 Vs. नधा रती / Assessee राज व / Revenue P.A. No.ABUPT5665K नधा रती क$ ओर से / Assessee by Shri Haresh P. Kenia राज व क$ ओर से / Revenue by Ms. N. Hemalatha-DR ु वाई क तार ख / Date of Hearing सन 03/01/2018 आदे श क तार ख /Date of Order: 03/01/2018 आदे श / O R D E R The assessee is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 30/11/2016 of the Ld. First Appellate Authority, Mumbai, confirming the addition of Rs.69,680/- on account of 2 ITA No.1596/Mum/2017 Kashinath Tapuriah undisclosed income u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act).
2. During hearing, Shri Harish P. Kenia, ld. counsel for the assessee, advanced arguments, which is identical to the ground raised by contending that the assessee is an old age person deposited a sum of Rs.2000 US $ in the foreign bank account of the assessee on 22/11/1995 and due to physical and mental disability could not explain the source of the deposit. On the other hand, the Ld. DR, Ms. N. Hemalatha, strongly contended that the source of the deposit could not be explained, therefore, the addition was rightly made.
2.1. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee deposited 2000 US $ in UBS AG, Zurich bank account. The assessee could not explain the source of such deposit and thus the addition was made u/s 68 of the Act by the Ld. Assessing Officer. On appeal before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), the assessee took the stand that he was suffering from multiple dieses and thus 3 ITA No.1596/Mum/2017 Kashinath Tapuriah the assessee was unable to recollect the source of such deposit. Identical plea was also raised before this Tribunal. Considering the totality of facts, admittedly, the onus u/s 68/69A of the Act is upon the assessee to explain the nature and source of such deposit. It is noted that right from assessment stage and till the stage of this Tribunal, the assessee has not explained the source and the genuineness of the deposit. Thus, without going into much deliberation, I find no infirmity in the conclusion of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), resultantly, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Finally, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. This order was pronounced in the open court in the presence of ld. representative from both sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 03/01/2018.
Sd/-
(Joginder Singh) या!यक सद"य / JUDICIAL MEMBER मब ुं ई Mumbai; दनांक Dated : 03/01/2018 f{x~{tÜ? P.S / नजी स चव 4 ITA No.1596/Mum/2017 Kashinath Tapuriah आदे श क$ )!त ल+प अ,े+षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथ& / The Appellant
2. '(यथ& / The Respondent.
3. आयकर आय* ु त/ The CIT, Mumbai.
4. आयकर आय* ु त / CIT- , Mumbai
5. +वभागीय ' त न ध, आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, मब ुं ई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai
6. गाड फाईल / Guard file.
आदे शानस ु ार/ BY ORDER, स(या+पत ' त //True Copy// उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, मंब ु ई / ITAT, Mumbai