TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 1333
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, "the Tribunal") in ITA No. 274/CHD/2013, for the assessment year 2009-10, claiming following substantial questions of law:- (i) "Whether under the facts & circumstances of the case, the benefit of the closing cash in hand as on 31.03.2008 duly disclosed can be given a set-off in the relevant assessment year 2009-10? (ii) Whether under the facts & circumstances of the case, the onus stands discharged by the assessee under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for proving the source of cash deposits through substantial evidences already on record? 3. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the appeal may be noticed. The appellant-assessee is a proprietor of Sun Craft Designs and is primari....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llaneous application dated 04.01.2016 before the Tribunal for reconsidering the order dated 28.10.2015. Vide order dated 03.2.2016, Annexure A.12, the Tribunal dismissed the miscellaneous application. Hence, the present appeal by the assessee before this Court. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant-assessee. 5. Admittedly, during the period relevant for the assessment year under consideration the assessee had deposited Rs. 26,77,000/- in his saving account with ICICI Bank. The Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation given by the assessee with regard to source of the deposit. Thus, addition was made by the Assessing Officer to the income of the assessee. It has been recorded by the CIT(A) that the cash withdra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t. Ritu Mallick as well as source of cash in hand as claimed by the assessee was filed during the course of assessment proceedings. The Tribunal accordingly dismissed the miscellaneous application vide order dated 03.02.2016. The relevant findings recorded by the Tribunal dated 28.10.2015, Annexure A.6 read thus:- "7. It is relevant to observe here that Ld. DR could not point out the additional evidence, if any, admitted by the CIT(A). On a perusal of the order of CIT(A), it would be clear that the CIT(A) has not admitted any additional evidence as alleged by the Revenue, therefore, there is no question of any violation of provisions of Rule 46A(2) of the I.T. Rules. As regards the merits of the case, it is an admitted fact that the assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hir Sehgal learned counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee had paid professional fee of Rs. 47,574/- to Shri Radhey Shyam Sharma on account of supervision works of the factory building. However, the Assessing Officer made the disallowance under Section 40(a) (ia) of the Act stating that no TDS was deducted on this payment. On appeal, CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance stating that the whole of the amount was payable to Shri Radhey Shyam Sharma who had raised consolidated bill of Rs. 47,574/-. The assessee was therefore liable to deduct TDS on this payment. He accordingly held that disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was justified. In our view, the order of CIT(A) deserves to be upheld as the assessee has failed to deduct TDS ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee before the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings to claim the source of cash deposits in the bank account relevant to period under consideration. The learned CIT(A) has categorically stated that the said contention of the assessee was merely an afterthought. He has also observed that no evidence of sale of land belonging to Smt. Ritu Mallick as well as source of cash in hand as claimed by the assessing was filed during the course of assessment proceedings. 5. The next contention of the assessee before the CIT(A) was that the following deposits in bank account of the assessee were made out of income of Smt. Ritu Mallick, wife of the assessee. Date &....