BAL RAM ,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD-1(2), GURGAON

Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused.

It emerges during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from both the parties that the learned lower authorities have inter alia treated the assessee’s cash deposits of Rs.12,00,000/-, Rs.19,92,992/- and Rs.2,45,389/-; 2192 & 2193/Del/2025 Bal Ram assessment year wise, respectively, as unexplained, in the corresponding assessments framed by the learned Assessing Officer and upheld in the respective lower appellate proceedings.

This being the factual backdrop, a combined perusal of all these case files inter alia reveals that even the learned Assessing Officer fairly accepts in A.Y. 2010-11 at page 3 para (a) that the assessee had already withdrawn Rs.65,50,000/- from his bank account on 01.09.2008, Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.3,50,000/- on 17.09.2008 and 24.10.2008; respectively. The factual position is hardly any different in the second assessment year A.Y. 2011-12 wherein the assessee had made similar withdrawals of Rs.41,80,000/- and Rs.25,00,000/- from Indian Bank and Bank of India; respectively. It is in this factual backdrop that the tribunal finds prima facie merit in the assessee’s explanation attributing source of the impugned cash deposits to his previous withdrawals; although, not satisfactorily explained before the learned lower authorities. It is thus deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lump sum addition of Rs.1,00,000/- in first and foremost A.Y. 2010-11 and Rs.2,00,000/- in second assessment year 2011-12 would meet the ends of justice with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. So far as the third addition of Rs.2,45,000/- in A.Y. 2012-13 (supra) is concerned, the same

No other ground or arguments has been pressed before us.

These assessee’s former twin appeals & 2192/Del/2025 are partly allowed and