PACKIAM ISSAC,TUTICORIN vs. ITO, WARD - 2, TUTICORIN

Upon perusal of assessment order for AY 2013-14, it could be seen that the assessee made cash deposits of Rs.118.74 Lacs in its bank accounts. Accordingly, the assessee was required to substantiate the sources of the same. As is evident from para-12 of the assessment order, the assessee failed to respond to various notices issued by Ld. AO on 11 occasions. Accordingly Ld. AO made addition of net cash deposit of Rs.92.19 Lacs. Similar assessment was framed for AY 2015- 16 wherein the assessee was saddled with additions of Rs.109.40 Lacs in similar fashion.

The position remained the same during appellate proceedings wherein the assessee could not furnish any evidence to substantiate the source of cash deposit though the assessee claimed that he was working as commission agent and collecting cash on behalf of others to pay their dues to the revenue authorities on their behalf. In the result, the assessment was confirmed for both the years. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. It is the submission of Ld. AR that the assessee is able to substantiate the claim by producing the persons who had rendered cash to the assessee.

We find that the assessee has failed to substantiate the sources of cash deposit. No material evidences could be filed before lower authorities which resulted into confirmation of impugned additions. However, keeping in view the principle of natural justice, we deem it fit to provide another opportunity of hearing to the assessee. However, this concession would come at a cost of Rs.10,000/- per appeal. The total cost of Rs.20,000/- shall be deposited by the assessee by 31.08.2023 to ‘Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority’ at Hon’ble High Court of Madras. The proof of the same shall be furnished by the assessee to learned Assessing Officer who shall proceed to re-adjudicate the issue on merits and frame an assessment de novo for both the years.