MY SHIPPING PRIVATE LIMITED,,SUREDRANAGAR vs. ACIT, SURENDRANAGAR CIRCLE, , SURENDRANAGAR

The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- “1] On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the reopening u/s 147 r.w.s. 148 is bad in law as the reopening is on basis of reason to suspect and not reason to believe. 2] On the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law the reopening u/s 147 r.w.s 148 is bad in law as the satisfaction recorded u/s 151(2) of the Act is not as per the requirement of the provisions of the Act. 3) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the C1T(A] erred in confirming the order of the assessing office in making an addition of Rs.450000/- on account of cash deposited in the bank ignoring the facts of the case.

There was a small delay of 64 days in filing the instant appeal by the assessee. In this regard, the assessee has applied for condonation of delay and furnished affidavit dated 18th March, 2020 from the director Shri Jayveer Shah. In the affidavit, the assessee has submitted that he had shifted to Mumbai and no- one was there at his native place, Surendrangar to receive the notices and other communications. Therefore, because of non-communication, there was a delay of 64 days.

Heard both the side and perused the material on record. It appeared that there is a bonafide reason for filing the instant appeal by a delay of 64 days. Therefore, we condone delay in filing the instant appeal.

In this case, assessment was finalized u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the act. The brief fact of the case is that in response to notice u/s. 148, the assessee has filed return of income on 2nd April, 2016 showing nil income. During the course assessment, the Assessing Officer stated that as per ITS data, assessee has made cash deposit in the bank account to the amount of Rs. 4,50,000/-. The break-up of this cash deposit has been given by the Assessing Officer as under:- Sr. No. Date Amount 1 28.03.2013 2,50,000/- 2 28.05.2012 2,00,000/- Total 4,50,000/- The Assessing Officer stated that assessee accepted that he was not able to explain such cash deposit, therefore, the same was treated as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the act.

The assessee has filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee reiterating the facts stated before the Assessing Officer.

During the course of appellate proceedings before us, the ld. counsel has brought to our notice that assessee has not admitted before the Assessing Officer that impugned cash deposit was not explainable. The ld. counsel has also submitted that before the ld. CIT(A) cash withdrawal and deposit were explained and books of accounts were produced but the same were not considered by the ld. CIT(A). The ld. counsel has also filed one paper book comprising coy of return filed, computation of total income, detail of bank account and detail submitted in response to the notice u/s. 142(1) of the act. On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representative has supported the order of lower authorities.

Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. Without reiterating the facts as elaborated above, after perusal of the material on record, it is observed that Assessing Officer has not made any specific reference to any noting on the order sheet or to any show cause notice vide which assessee was asked to provide explanation of the impugned cash deposited in the bank account of the assessee. In support of his findings, the Assessing Officer has also not referred any evidence to substantiate that assessee has admitted the cash deposited as unexplainable. The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without giving specific reason to contravene the submission made by the assessee during the course of appellate proceedings. The Assessing Officer has also not pointed out any discrepancy noticed from the books of accounts produced by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings. In view of the aforesaid infirmity found in the order of the Assessing Officer, we restore this issue to the file of the Page No 4 My Shipping Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT Assessing Officer for deciding de-novo after considering the specific submission to be filed by the assessee after affording reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Accordingly, this ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.