AMAR PRAFULBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. ITO WARD 3(2)(7) SURAT, SURAT

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A), has grossly erred in confirming the action of the learned AO in treating the cash deposit of Rs. 5,45,000/- as made by the appellant in his bank account, as income from undisclosed sources and making addition thereof u/s. 69A of the Act, which is erroneous, illegal and bad-in-law and needs to be deleted. 2. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A), has grossly erred in confirming the action of the learned AO in taxing the addition by taking the rate @ 77.25% by attracting section 115BBE instead of normal tax rate. 3. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A), has grossly erred in taxing the income u/s. 115BBE @ 77.25% in a retroactive section 115BBE inserted by

Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

The Ld. Authorised Representative (in short “Ld. AR”) for the assessee submitted that the assessee has two bank accounts; one with of Bank of Baroda and the account number was 263010001425 wherein amount of Rs.2,45,000/- was deposited and the second account was with State Bank of India and the account number was 30904478513 wherein the amount deposited was Rs.3,00,000/- only. The assessee has given the details to the Ld. AO as well as to the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee has asked the Revenue to give the details of the other account as mentioned in para 5 of the assessment order being account No.30196762959 & 30904497241. The Ld. AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A) has not commented or not verified from the concerned banks where the assessee was not

The Ld. Departmental Representative (in short “Ld. DR”) for the Revenue relied upon the assessment order and the order of the Ld. CIT(A).

Heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. There is a delay of 17 days and the same is condoned. It is pertinent to note that the assessee has given the details of computation of total income and the return filed by the assessee as well as submitted the cash deposits which was received from salary income and saving in the two bank accounts mentioned at page 15 of the Ld. CIT(A)’s order. The remand report also did not doubt the assessee’s bank account with the said account number. The assessee has given the cash flow statement as well as the day-to-day cash book along with month- wise summary. The assessee has also given the three bank account statements. The assessee from his known sources has deposited the cash during the demonetization period and explained that the same was withdrawn from time to time. These facts were not taken into account by the Ld. AO as well as by the Ld. CIT(A). Hence, the addition made by the Ld. AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified.

In result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.