SANTOSH N. DHOKA,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 8(1), PUNE

The only issue raised in this appeal is against the confirmation of addition of Rs.15,00,900/- on account of deposits made in assessee’s bank account.

Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of trading in readymade garments, suiting and shirting. During the course of scrutiny proceedings, it was observed that a sum of Rs.15,00,900/- was deposited in cash in the assessee’s bank account maintained with HDFC Bank. On being called upon to explain the source of the said cash, the assessee submitted that the amount was deposited by one Mr. Pranit Bhaviskar towards repayment of loan in his bank account. However, the assessee could neither substantiate the explanation nor furnish any confirmation. The assessee required the AO to obtain necessary information from the HDFC bank account. On a letter issued to HDFC bank, it was responded to the AO that the cash was deposited in assessee’s bank account by Mr. Pranit Bhaviskar, but no further details were available. The assessee was again confronted with the same and requested to prove the identity who allegedly deposited the cash in his bank account. The assessee remained unsuccessful, which led to the making o addition for the equal sum, that got confirmed in the first appeal.

I have heard both the sides and perused the relevant material on record. It is observed that the assessee tendered an explanation before the ld. CIT(A) that Mr. Pranit Bhaviskar was running ponzi scheme who lured the assessee and his friends to make investments into his scheme. Subsequently, Mr. Pranit Bhaviskar was found missing after collecting a sum of Rs.78.00 lakh from the people who had invested through the assessee in the ponzi scheme. Even an FIR was also filed against Mr. Pranit Bhaviskar. The fact of the matter is that a cash of Rs.15,00,900/- was deposited in the assessee’s bank account and in such circumstances it was his obligation to substantiate the explanation as to the source of deposit by some credible evidence. Here is a case in which the assessee is claiming that Mr. Pranit Bhaviskar deposited a sum of Rs.15,00,900/- in his bank account towards repayment of the amounts already deposited. The explanation is not substantiated by the assessee, which is actually required to be so. The ld. AR requested for one more opportunity for enabling the assessee to tender some evidence corroborating his version. Considering the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the instant case, I am of the considered opinion that it would be in the fitness of things if one more opportunity is granted to the assessee to place on record the evidence in support of his explanation. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the file of the AO for taking a fresh decision on the issue. It is reiterated that if the assessee still fails to lead evidence to the satisfaction of the AO in such a fresh round, the AO will be entitled to draw an adverse inference against the assessee.

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

Sd/- (R.S.SYAL) उपा�य� उपा�य�/ VICE PRESIDENT उपा�य� उपा�य� पुणे Pune; �दनांक Dated : 04th February, 2020 सतीश