RAJI RAM JAT,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, SRIGANGANAGAR

Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM:

This captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee against the

order of the ld. CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 10.08.2022 in respect of Assessment Year: 2014-15 wherein the

2 ITA No. 130/Jodh/2022 Raji Ram Jat v. ITO appellant has challenged the order of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the

addition made u/s 69A by treating the amount deposited in the saving bank

A/c as the investment.

appellant assessee is an agriculturist and wine contractor. The AO has

completed assessment by making an addition of Rs.20,37,029/- u/s 69 on

account of amount deposited in saving bank A/c based on peak cash credit

theory. The ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition made by the AO as

unexplained investment within the meaning of provisions of section 69 of

the I. T. Act, 1961. The appellant has pleaded that he has made cash

deposit of Rs.50,70,500/- with Union Bank of India Shri Ganganagar during

the financial year 2013-14 relevant to assessment year 2014-15. The

counsel has submitted that the authorities below has not appreciated the

merits of the case and ignored the submissions of the appellant particularly

bank statement and the explanation submitted in respect of deposits

therein and thus, passed the order without application of mind in a cryptic

manner. He requested that the matter may sent to the file of the AO to give

one more opportunity to the appellant assessee to comply the queries of

the Assessing Officer to explain the cash deposit in its bank A/c with the

3 ITA No. 130/Jodh/2022 Raji Ram Jat v. ITO supporting corroborative documentary evidences to the satisfaction of the

Assessing Officer.

We find that the appellant assessee has made cash deposits to its saving

bank A/c which has been ignored by the AO while rejecting the explanation

submitted by the appellant assessee. In our view, opportunity of being

heard is required to be given to the appellant by the Assessing Officer in

view of principles of natural justice. Further, the assessee being an

agriculturist, and a small contractor, he should get afresh opportunity of

being heard before the Assessing Officer to file the requisite details in

support of its claim to explain the said disputed cash deposits as computed

as peak cash deposit by the AO. Accordingly, we consider it deem fit to

remand back the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer to pass denovo

assessment order after granting adequate opportunity of being heard to the

appellant assessee after considering the documentary evidences, to be

furnished in support of its claim of the said disputed cash deposits in the

denovo assessment proceedings. At the same time, the appellant

assessee shall co-operate in the assessment proceedings before the

4 ITA No. 130/Jodh/2022 Raji Ram Jat v. ITO Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the matter is restored back to the file of the

AO to pass denovo assessment as per law.

purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 22.11.2023

Sd/- Sd/- (Anikesh Banerjee) (Dr. M. L. Meena) Judicial Member Accountant Member *GP/Sr.PS* Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT (A) 5. The DR 6. Guard File Assistant Registrar Jodhpur Bench