NARESH,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO WARD 2(5), GHAZIABAD

Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, these all relate to the order of the CIT(A) in upholding the order passed by the AO u/s 147/144 of the Act and thereby sustaining the addition of Rs.11,97,940/- made by the AO.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual. On the basis of the information that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs.11,89,500/- in Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ghaziabad and had not filed his return of income for the impugned assessment year, the AO reopened the assessment after recording reasons and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act. Although the assessee filed a reply along with copy of PAN, bank account and Khasra and Khatauni and submitted that the cash was deposited in his savings bank account along with his brother Mr. Bablu and the said deposit is out of agricultural transaction, the AO rejected the claim in absence of any proof/evidence in support of such agricultural income. Despite number of opportunities granted, the assessee did not file any submission to the queries raised by the AO. The AO, therefore, proceeded to complete the assessment u/s 144 of the Act and made addition of Rs.11,89,500/- treating the cash deposited in the bank account as unexplained deposit. The AO also made addition of Rs.8,393/- being the interest received by the assessee in his bank account.

During the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee filed written submission along with certain additional evidences. However, the ld.CIT(A) did not admit the additional evidence and rejected the claim of the assessee that the cash so deposited is out of agricultural income and re-deposited out of earlier withdrawal.

Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessment was completed ex parte due to non-compliance of certain statutory notices which was beyond the control of the assessee since the earlier counsel did not appear before the AO. He submitted that the additional evidences which go to the root of the matter were rejected by the CIT(A). He submitted that in the interest of justice the assessee should be given an opportunity to substantiate the case as the assessee is basically an agriculturist and does not have any other income and cannot pay such huge tax as demanded.

The ld. DR, on the other hand, heavily relied on the order of the CIT(A).

I have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that the AO reopened the assessment on the ground that the assessee has made cash deposit of Rs.11,89,500/- in his bank account maintained with Oriental Bank of Commerce and could not explain the source of such deposit. I find, the ld.CIT(A) rejecting the additional evidences filed before her, sustained the addition made by the AO in absence of any evidence before her to show that such deposit is also out of agricultural income. It is the submission of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that the amount so deposited in the bank is out of agricultural income and certain deposits are out of earlier withdrawals from the said bank. It is also his submission that given an opportunity, the assessee is in a position to substantiate his case before the AO