RAHIMAN GULAB BAGWAN,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD -2 (1), KOLHAPUR

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee made certain cash deposits in his bank account to the tune of Rs.4,79,720/-. On being called upon to explain the source of deposits, the assessee submitted that these were made out of cash sales. It was also put forth that because of the assessee being involved in the business as a commission agent of agricultural produce, some of the farmers directly deposited the cash in his bank account, which was later on adjusted. Not satisfied, the AO made disallowance of Rs.4,50,937/- u/s 68 of the Act, which came to be confirmed in the first appeal.

4. I have heard ld. DR and perused the relevant material on record. There is no appearance from the side of assessee, despite notices. As such, I am proceeding to decide the appeal ex-parte qua the assessee.

It is observed that the assessee made cash deposits on different dates amounting to Rs.4,79,720/-, out of which the AO made addition of Rs.4,50,937/-. The genuineness of the source of cash deposits in the bank needs to be seen in the background of the fact that the assessee declared total income of Rs.1,95,240/- and further that he was engaged in the business as commission agent of agricultural produce dealing with the farmers. Considering the position in a holistic manner, I am of the opinion that the extent of cash deposited in the bank account to the tune of Rs.4,79,720/- cannot be doubted as emanating from undisclosed sources. I, therefore, accept the contention put forth on behalf of the assessee before the authorities below and order to delete the addition.

In the result, the appeal is allowed. Order pronounced on 7th day of February, 2020.

The Pr. CIT-2, Kolhapur. 5. ववभधगीय प्रनतननधध, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, “एक-सदस्य” बेंच, ऩुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. गधर्ा फ़धइऱ / Guard File. 6. आदेशधनुसधर / BY ORDER, //True copy// वररष्ठ ननजी सधचव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, ऩुणे / ITAT, Pune