SANEEV CHAWLA,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO,WARD-2(2)(4), GHAZIABAD

(A.Y.2012-13) Sanjeev Chawla, S/o Shri Krishan Lal Chawla, H.No. 286, Vivekanand Nagar, Ghaziabad, UP 201002 ...... अपीलाथ�/Appellant PAN: AMVPC-4308-G बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(4), CGO Complex-I, Purani Hapur Chungi, ..... �ितवादी/Respondent Ghaziabad, UP 201002 अपीलाथ� �ारा/ Appellant by : S/Shri Sahil Sharma & Sanjeev Prashar, Advocates �ितवादी�ारा/Respondent by : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR सुनवाई क� ितिथ/ Date of hearing : 19/05/2025 घोषणा क� ितिथ/ Date of pronouncement : : 19/05/2025 आदेश/ORDER

PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:

(AY 2012-13) 3. Shri Sahil Sharma appearing on behalf of the assessee at the outset submitted that he is not pressing ground of appeal no. 2 to 4 challenging validity of the assessment. In light of the statement made by ld. Counsel for the assessee, grounds of appeal no. 2 to 4 are dismissed as not pressed.

4. In ground no. 5 & 6 of appeal, the assessee has assailed addition of Rs.13,05,880/- made u/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act,1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) on account of unexplained cash deposits. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the assessee is a transporter. During Financial Year 2011-12, relevant to assessment year under appeal, the assessee had taken some trucks from Smt. Vinita Jha and Shri Sunil Jha for plying on rent. During Financial Year 2011-12, the assessee had declared gross turn over from transport business Rs.14,50,000/- . The assessee filed his return of income for AY 2012-13 u/s. 44AD of the Act offering income to tax on presumptive basis. Cash deposits in the bank aggregating to Rs.13,00,000/- over the period of one year is the part of gross turnover of the assessee. He refers to bank statement at pages 20 & 21 of the paper book. He pointed that the aforesaid bank account has been reflected in the return of income. He contended that the Assessing Officer (AO) and the CIT(A) has disbelieved the explanation furnished by the assessee regarding source of cash deposits.

5. Per contra, Shri Manoj Kumar representing the department vehemently defended the impugned order and prayed for dismissing appeal of the assessee.

6. Both sides heard, orders of the authorities below examined. The solitary addition which is subject matter of appeal is addition on account of unexplained cash deposits in the bank account amounting to Rs.13,05,880/-. It is emanating from records that the aforesaid amount was deposited by the assessee over the (AY 2012-13) period of 12 months. The contention of the assessee is that the assessee is a transporter and cash deposits in the bank account are part of gross turnover of the assessee Rs.14,50,000/- which is duly reflected in the return of income. The assessee has offered income to tax u/s. 44AD of the Act. The bank account in which cash deposits have been made has been duly reflected in the return of income. Therefore, it can be safely presumed that the cash deposits in the said bank account have been included by the assessee in the return income being part of gross total turnover. I find the explanation furnished by the assessee plausible. The findings of the CIT(A) on this issue are reversed and ground no. 5 & 6 of appeal is allowed.