KAMALESH BHATTACHARYYA, KOLKATA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-22(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The issue raised in Ground No. 2 is against the confirmation of addition by ld. CIT(A) as made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.49,79,500/-, u/s 69A of the Act on account of unexplained money being cash deposited in the bank during demonetisation period.

The facts in brief are that the assessee is an Advocate in practice. During the year, the assessee deposited a sum of Rs. 59,79,500/- cash during the demonetisation period. The details whereof is given at para 4 page 2 of Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kamalesh Bhattacharya 2 the assessment order. The assessee states that the said cash was received from eight clients for incurring various expenditure on their behalf which is an usual practice in the profession. The Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 133(6) to all these persons, however, only three persons replied. The assessee also states that, he received Rs.10,00,000/- from Mr. Susanta Bhowmick, as advance for purchase of land but the same was returned back subsequently. The assessee did not furnish any explanation or evidence to explain the said deposit of cash. Consequently the Assessing Officer after allowing a deduction of Rs.10,00,000/- which was claimed by the assessee being received in connection with advance for purchase of land.

During the first appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT(A) simply affirmed the order of the Assessing Officer.

Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

After hearing rival contentions, we find that the issue needs to be examined at the level of the Assessing Officer as no evidence were examined by the either of the authorities below. We also direct the assessee to produce all these clients and furnish the necessary evidence which may be required by the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. Accordingly, we restore the issue to the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment, in accordance with law. Ground No. 2, raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

The issue raised in Ground Nos. 3 & 4, is against the confirmation of addition of Rs.5,88,407/- as made by the Assessing Officer on account of difference in gross receipts as shown in the return of income and amount of income reflected in Form 26AS. Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kamalesh Bhattacharya 3

After hearing rival parties and perusing the material available on record, we observe that the issue has not been examined by the Assessing Officer in totality nor has it been explained by the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fairplay, we deem it fit to restore this issue back to the file of the ld. Assessing Officer to examine the issue afresh by providing adequate opportunity to the assessee of being heard. Accordingly, Ground Nos. 3 & 4 are allowed for statistical purposes.

The issue raised in Ground No. 5 is against the confirmation of addition of Rs.11,34,745/- as made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69C of the Act. The facts in brief are that the Assessing Officer observed from Form 26AS that the assessee deducted TCS of Rs.11,347/- on account of purchase of motorcar at Rs.11,34,745/-. The assessee was asked about the source of such expenditure. However, assessee failed to furnish anything.

Considering the rival contentions and the facts on record, we deem it fit to restore this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication and take a view after examining all the details already on record as well as the fresh evidence, if any, brought on record by the assessee. Accordingly, Ground No. 5 of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

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

""यथ" / The Respondent 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु" / Concerned Pr. CIT 4. आयकर आयु" अपील ( ) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय "ितिनिध ,आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, कोलकाता/DR,ITAT, Kolkata, 6. गाड" फाईल /Guard file.