ANSHUL GUPTA,GURUGRAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 42(2)(1), MUMBAI

Based on tax evasion petition, certain enquiries were caused by the Ld.AO in this case and it was found that the appellant has deposited the amount of Rs. 19,63,469/- into his bank account. As per the information received by him, appellant has kept 4 kgs of gold in the locker, the Ld. AO issued seven notices requesting the appellant to explain sources of bank deposits and gold acquired. Despite above notices, appellant did not file any reply and hence assessment was competed by making addition of cash deposits and value of gold of 4 kgs.

Aggrieved by this order, appellant filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). When the appeal is posted for hearing before the first appellate authority, appellant filed certain fresh evidences before Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) has rejected admission of such fresh evidences by stating that conditions

Appellant filed further appeal before the ITAT with following grounds of appeal : 1. That the learned NFAC did not properly consider the submissions made by the Assessee before them. As the order by the learned AO was passed under Section 144 all the evidences were additional evidences and for which application was also made to consider but were still ignored and addition was confirmed as it is. It is craved that the matter be referred back to the AO so that all evidences and documents are considered and the conclusion is reached thereupon.

For that impugned order is a completely non-reasoned order and it does not at all disclose any reasoning as to how and why the Assessee's contention is not convincing and not tenable.

It is alleged that the appellant had invested in 4Kg gold worth INR 1,13,88,000 during the AY in question and as the Source of the investment is was unexplained this entire amount was added. This allegation is frivolous and is purely baseless without any proofs and is only based on frivolous TEP filed by the ex wife just to harass the appellant the appellant has not made any investment in gold during the said year.

INR 19,63,469 has been added back citing as unexplained deposits in the bank account. The credits in the bank account are explainable and thus opportunity is seeked to explain the credits. The NFAC did not consider the complete bank statements submitted in which all credit entries were explanatory.

From the above, it can be seen that the appellant wanted to file certain explanations relating to cash deposit but the same were rejected by Ld. CIT(A). As far as cost of gold added by the Ld. AO, Ld. AR of the appellant has stated that there is no such gold and allegation itself is frivolous and purely baseless without any evidence. But, Ld. AR of the appellant did not Mr. Anshul Gupta

During the hearing before the ITAT, Ld. AR requested that one more opportunity may be given to the appellant to explain source of cash and gold deposited in the bank account. It was reiterated that there is no such gold in locker. It was pleaded that case may be remitted back to the file of the Ld. AO, where all the evidences and submission could be furnished.

Ld. DR opposed the plea of sending it back to the file of Ld. AO by stating that seven opportunities were already given to the appellant and even today also Ld. AR could not give convincing reason for not submitting details required by the Ld. AO. Further Ld. DR argued that the addition made by the Ld. AO should be confirmed.

Heard both sides. From the orders of the Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A), it is observed that the facts were not mentioned in full. Prima facie, the appellant has not filed details before the Ld. AO and evidences which were filed before Ld. CIT(A) were not admitted. In this backdrop, appellant does not have any opportunity to explain source of cash deposits and acquisition of gold. In view of the above, the Bench has decided to remit the issue back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with the direction that the evidences filed/to be filed may be admitted and a speaking order should be passed based on the submissions and evidences filed by the appellant. The appellant is also directed to cooperate with the Department and submit all details required by Ld. CIT(A) with regard to sources of cash deposits and gold. As it was observed that the appellant did not respond to seven notices issued by the Ld. AO, appellant is hereby directed to cooperate with Ld. CIT(A) and furnish all details required to dispose of the appeal. With these directions, the matter is set aside to the file of Ld. CIT(A).

The appeal of appellant is allowed for statistical purposes.

The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file.