SHRI SURESHKUMAR ISHWARLAL PATEL,,UNJHA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, PATAN

This appeal has been filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) vide Appeal No. CIT(A)/GNR/411/2013-14 order dated 19/03/2015 2 . A.Y. 2006-07 arising out of assessment order dated 30/12/2013. The assessee has taken following grounds of appeal: 1) 1.1 The order passed u/s.250 on 19-03-2015 for A.Y.2006-07 by CIT(A)-GNR, Ahmedabad upholding the addition of Rs.7,19,835/- made by AO is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice. 1.2 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in not considering fully and properly the submissions made and evidence produced by the appellant with regard to the impugned additions. 1.3 The Ld.CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in rejecting the application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A, the conditions were satisfied. 2.1 The Ld.CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in holding that cash deposits aggregating to Rs.7,15,000/- in account with Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Unjha as unexplained cash deposit. 2.2 That in the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Ld.CIT(A) ought not to have upheld the addition of Rs.7,15,000/- in account with Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Unjha as unexplained cash deposit. 2.3 Without prejudice to above and in the alternative, the impugned addition of Rs.7,15,000/- confirmed by CIT(A) is highly excessive. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not allowing the benefit of peak credit.. It is therefore, prayed that the addition Rs. 7,19,835/- upheld by the CIT(A) may kindly be deleted.

Brief facts of the case are that assesseeis an individual and derives income mainly from agriculture and other sources, he had income below taxable limit, no return of income for A.Y. 2006-07. However, in view of AIR information received about cash deposits made bank account with Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Unjha, the A.O. issued notice u/s. 148 on 28/03/2013. But in response to this notice, assessee did not file any supporting documents with regard to cash deposits and other details. Since there was no cooperation on behalf of the assessee, the Ld. A.O. made addition on account 3 . A.Y. 2006-07 of unexplained cash deposit and interest income and made addition of Rs. 7,19,835/-. Ld. A.O. passed u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147.

Thereafter assessee preferred first statutory appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and filed evidences before the Ld. CIT(A) filed certain evidences with regard to cash deposit in the said bank wherein it is mentioned that some of the amount he was having in cash and Rs. 1,50,000/- was received on account of Banakhat on sale of a shop and some of the amount was receive by the assessee on account of sale of Gold, Silver and Ornaments and filed supporting document. But ld. CIT(A) did not agree with the contention of the assessee for the reason that appellant filed details after the prolonged delay of almost 7 months and confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer.

Now assessee has come before us by way of second statutory appeal. Ld. A.R. argued that asessee has filed all the relevant document with regard to cash deposit in the said bank but Ld. CIT(A) did not consider at all.

In our considered opinion, Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the evidences filed by the assessee and also should have sought a remand report from the Assessing Officer but he failed to do so. Since appellant did not file any relevant documents before the Assessing Officer and wasted precious time of the lower authority and in the interest of justice, we set aside this matter to the file of the Assessing Officer with the condition that assessee shall deposit a cost of Rs. 5,000/- with the revenue within 60 days from the date of receipt of this order and thereafter Assessing Officer shall proceed with the appeal and will examine all the documents which have been filed before the ld. CIT(A) and thereafter will pass an order as per law.