Case Law Details
Vijay Kashinath Jagtap Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
It is evident that the assessee was working with M/s. Pfizer Ltd. and had taken voluntary retirement. On a perusal of Form 26AS, the gross total income of the assessee was declared as Rs.63,58,458/- and the assessee has filed his original return of income dated 26.08.2015, declaring net income of Rs.45,39,698/- and revised his return of income declaring Rs.23,26,687/- and Rs.24,26,682/- in his second revised return dated 17.02.2016. The allegation by the lower authorities that the assessee has fraudulently claimed higher refund by filing the revised return twice is not controverted by the assessee either by way of return submission or by producing any documentary evidence in support of his stand. The assessee has failed to rebut the addition made by the A.O. and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). It is also observed that the A.O. had issued notice u/s. 133(6) to M/s. Pfizer Ltd. which had replied stating that the assessee has received Rs.63,75,681/- during the impugned year. The assessee has failed to establish the difference amount specified in Form 26AS and the returns filed by the assessee. Though several opportunities have been given to the assessee, the assessee has failed to furnish any documentary evidence for rebuttal.
From the above observation, we are of the considered view that the assessee has nothing to controvert the view of the lower authorities in making the addition u/s. 68 of the Act as ‘unexplained cash credit’.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT MUMBAI
This appeal has been filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘ld.CIT(A) for short)-3, Thane passed u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2015-16.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
