MOHAMMED HAMEED ALI KHAN,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

At the time of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the assessee has not filed any written submissions despite various opportunities given to the assessee. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the assessee has sought time for filing the necessary details and submissions however, the learned CIT(A) has passed the impugned order without granting further time to the assessee. Thus, the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the assessee may be granted one more opportunity to produce the necessary details and documents in respect of the source of deposit of cash in the bank account on account of which the Assessing Officer has made the addition which was confirmed by the learned CIT(A) while passing the impugned order.

On the other hand, the learned DR has submitted that despite sufficient opportunities given by the Assessing Officer as well as the learned CIT(A) the assessee failed to submit any supporting evidence and even not furnished any written submissions before the learned CIT(A) in respect of the claim.

We have considered the rival submissions and carefully perused the impugned orders of the authorities below. The Assessing Officer has made the addition of Rs.36,70,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposit in the bank account u/sec.69A r.w.s.115BBE of the Income Tax Act [in short "the Act"], 1961. The Assessing Officer has recorded the reasons for making the addition that the assessee has merely stated that cash deposit represents withdrawal amount from his bank account. However, the assessee failed to submit any corroborative documentary evidence to substantiate his claim. Further the Assessing Officer also observed that withdrawal of cash cannot be accepted as source of further deposits as no prudent person withdraw the cash from his own bank account for the purpose of re-depositing. On appeal, the learned CIT(A), has dismissed the appeal when the assessee has not filed any submissions or other material including the evidence to substantiate the claim. The learned CIT(A) has referred various decisions on dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution. Thus, it is clear that due to non- furnishing of the written submissions as well as other relevant material in support of the claim, the learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. It is clear that the Assessing Officer has declined to accept the source of earlier cash withdrawal which may be the matter of record available with the Assessing Officer being the bank account statement of the assessee in which the cash was deposited. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case and by taking a lenient view, we allow one more opportunity to the assessee to produce the relevant supporting evidence as well as the explanation of source of cash deposit in the bank account subject to cost of Rs.5000/- [Rs.Five Thousand Only] to be paid to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bar Association, Hyderabad within a period of one month from the date of this order. Accordingly, the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is remanded to the record of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication of this issue after giving one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate the claim by filing the evidence as well as explanation of source of cash deposit in the bank account. We Order accordingly.

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