EJAZ AKHTAR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 28(4), NEW DELHI

We find that during the course of assessment proceedings for A.Y. 2009-10 assessee had given similar explanation and the activities performed by him and the AO in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) had made addition of only the peak deposits of cash. Before us, Learned AR has also pointed to the fact that for A.Y. 2012-13, the case of the assessee was re-opened for the reasons that it was noted that there were cash deposits in assessee’s bank account and the assessee being a non-filer. We find that in the assessment order passed for A.Y. 2012-13 u/s 147 r.w. 143(3), the income declared by the assessee has been accepted and no addition on account of undisclosed source u/s 69A of the Act has been made. In such a situation following the principle of consistency, we are of the view that the addition of the entire cash deposits in the assessee’s Bank account is uncalled for and find force in the submission of the Ld AR that only the peak cash deposits be considered as income of the Assessee. Before us, assessee has filed the working of the peak credit of deposits. We however find that there is no finding of the lower authorities on that aspect. Considering the totality of the facts and in view of the facts that in earlier years the addition has been made only on the peak deposits, we direct the AO to make the addition of only the peak cash deposits during the year. We accordingly direct the AO to examine the working of peak cash deposits furnished by the assessee and thereafter make the addition of the peak amount. We thus direct so. Thus the ground of the Assessee is partly allowed.”