AMRIT DAS,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 26(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT PROPERLY GO THROUGH THE DETAILS OF DOCUMENTS ANNEXED FOR THE DEPOSITS IN SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE HAD NO SCOPE TO PRODUCE DETAILS OF DOCUMENTS OF THE DEPOSITS IN SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT BEFORE THE A.O. AND BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY.

ASSESSEE SEEKS REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO PRODUCE DETAILS OF DOCUMENTS FOR THE DEPOSITS IN SB ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH AXIS BANK, A/C NO: 910010048802014 DURING A.Y. 2012-13 (F.Y: 2011-12). ASSESSEE URGES TO ADD FURTHER GROUNDS AT THE TIME OF APPEAL HEARING BEFORE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL.” Assessment Year: 2012-13 Amrit Das 2

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and did not file any return for the Assessment Year 2012-13. On the basis of information gathered by the ld. Assessing Officer, about the cash deposits in the assessee’s bank account, notice u/s 148 of the Act issued after obtaining approval from the ld. Pr. CIT. Thereafter, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act, dt. 11/11/2019, had been issued through ITBA, and served upon the assessee by e-proceedings as well as manually but the assessee failed to appear. As a result, the ld. Assessing Officer completed the assessment, assessing the income at Rs.2,13,000/-, which was the total of cash deposits found to be deposited in the assessee’s bank account during the period 18/05/2011 to 06/02/2012. 3. 1. Aggrieved the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). But failed to succeed as in view of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee could not prove the identity of the contributors, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions. As the assessee failed to produce the documents before the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal observing as follows:- “5.3 During the appellate proceedings, the appellant submitted that he lived in Kyrgyzstan for studying medicine and related studies, since 2005. He also submitted a copy of his Passport. He has submitted that in order to maintain his expenses, he was engaged in business by supporting medical aspirants to enroll them in medical colleges of that country. He contacted students who were interested to take admission for medical study in Kyrgyzstan through his connections. In India he maintained a savings account in which all the funds were deposited by respective parents of such students. All such deposits credited to this account were withdrawn from overseas location for the payment of tuition fees of such students for their accommodation and maintenance. He submitted that his source of income during the stay in that country came from the business which was run by him under the business name - Med-Studies. The appellant has submitted the copy of the business certificate and the copy of agreement with the University and the statement of payment of fees. He has also submitted that he could not file his ITR for A.Y. 2012-13 as he was staying in Kyrgyzstan during the period and, therefore, could not respond to the statutory notices also.

The submissions made by the appellant have been considered and it is observed that the appellant had started his own business in the name and style of Med- Studies registered in Kyrgyzstan. The appellant has submitted the copy of Assessment Year: 2012-13 Amrit Das 3 registration of his business during the appellate proceedings. Further, the appellant has also submitted the copy of certificate issued by the Ministry of Education, Kyrgyzstan specifying the academic year, name of the student, passport number of the student, date of birth, amount received from the student in US Dollars in the account of the payee i.e. the appellant. However, the appellant has not, been able to prove the identity of the contributors, credit worthiness and genuineness of the transaction as these documents were not produced before the AO and also before the First Appellate Authority. Therefore, the amount of Rs.2,13,000/- added by the AO u/s 68 of the I.T. Act is hereby upheld. The grounds of appeal taken by the appellant are hereby dismissed.”

Aggrieved the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal.

At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the assessee was living in Kyrgyzstan for the study of Bachelor of Medicine, post graduate and internship. The assessee is stated to be engaged in the business of earning in Kyrgyzstan as well as in India in the name of Medical Studies. The assessee used to contact various students in India who were interested in taking admission for medical study. The assessee also referred to various documents in support of its contention that those who have deposited cash sum in the assessee’s bank account, have given their declaration with their identity proof and, therefore, prayer was made that one more opportunity may be given to place all these documents before the Assessing Officer for kind consideration.

On the other hand, the ld. D/R had no objection if the issues are restored to the ld. Assessing Officer for fresh examination for considering the documents.

We have heard rival contentions and perused the record placed before us.

Addition towards unexplained cash deposit of Rs.2,13,000/- is in challenge before us. The assessee failed to appear on the dates of hearing before the ld. Assessing Officer. Further during the course of proceedings Assessment Year: 2012-13 Amrit Das 4 before the ld. First Appellate Authority the assessee has filed various documents in support of its contention that the alleged cash has been deposited by various students/parents of students who wanted to study abroad in the medical colleges in Kyrgyzstan, Russia. Since these documents could not be examined by the ld. Assessing Officer, we deem it proper to restore the issue of unexplained cash deposit to the ld. Assessing Officer to examine the creditworthiness of the persons depositing money in assessee’s bank account and genuineness of the transactions and documents filed before us and to decide in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to place all these documents before the ld. Assessing Officer having juri iction over him and not to take any adjournment unless required for reasonable cause and explain the facts of the case and the source of cash deposit to the satisfaction of ld. Assessing Officer who shall provide the assesse a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Court on 16th February, 2023 at Kolkata. (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Kolkata, Dated 16/02/2023 *SC SrPs Assessment Year: 2012-13 Amrit Das 5

""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.