ANIL SRICHAND ROHRA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), KALYAN

The Assessing Authority" failed to establish any corroborative evidence for alleged cash deposits in bank account maintained by the appellant, which in fact are duly recorded in books of accounts.

Updated or Revised Computation of total income derived from the books of accounts, maintained and corresponding taxes paid by the appellant may be accepted.”

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and for the year under consideration, filed his return of income, declaring a total income of Rs.2,48,200/-. Subsequently, proceedings under section 147 of the Act were initiated, and notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 31.03.2021. However, in response to the aforesaid notice, the assessee did not file his return of income. Further, in response to the statutory notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act, the assessee only submitted the computation of income and a copy of the return originally filed. However, there was no explanation or documentary evidence with regard to the source of large cash deposits amounting to Rs.1,07,52,865/- made by the assessee during the year under consideration in its bank account maintained with the ICICI Bank Limited. Accordingly, vide order dated 28.03.2022 passed under section 147 r.w. section 144B of the Act, the AO considered the entire cash deposit as unexplained money of the assessee under section 69A of the Act and added the same to the total income of the assessee.

During the hearing, the learned Authorized Representative (“learned AR”) submitted that none of the notices issued by the learned CIT(A) were received by the assessee as the same were sent to an e-mail address which was different from the registered e-mail address provided by the assessee. The learned AR further submitted that during the year under consideration, the assessee filed its return of income under the presumptive provision of section 44AB of the Act and hence the entire cash deposit was already offered to tax by the assessee. In this regard, by referring to the computation sheet annexed along with the assessment order, the learned AR submitted that the income was treated as income from business by the AO. The learned AR further submitted that the AO has considered the income at Rs.2,48,200/-, however, the same is in fact Rs.3,36,229/-.

From the perusal of the computation sheet, we further find that the AO has considered income from other sources at Rs.2,10,09,330/-, however, there is no such discussion regarding the same in the assessment order. Further, as per the computation of total income furnished by the assessee, the assessee has only declared income from other sources at Rs.2,174/-. Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for de novo consideration after providing the reasonable and adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. With the above directions, the impugned order is set aside, and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 03/07/2025