VIKRAM BABULAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICR-19(3)(5), MUMBAI

P a g e | (A.Y.2012-13) VIKRAM BABULAL SHAH 147 of the Act and has also challenged the addition made u/s 68 of the Act on unexplained cash credit amounting to Rs.40,36,930/-.

Briefly stated the assessee has not filed his return of income for the impugned year and assessee’s case was reopened u/s 148 of the Act on 28.03.2019. It is observed that the assessee has not responded to the notices issued u/s.142(1) dated 05.11.2019 and 02.11.2019. Pursuant to that the Assessing Officer (AO) passed the best judgment order u/s 144 of the Act on presumptive basis dated 28.12.2019. It is observed that the assessee had deposited cash in the bank account amounting to Rs.40,36,930/- during the impugned year and since, the assessee had not filed his return of income, the AO had reason to believe that income has escaped assessment and thereby reopened the case of the assessee. The AO added the impugned amount to the total income of the assessee after conducting due enquiry by issuing notices u/s133(6) of the Act to Kotak Mahindra Bank and State Bank of India, where the assessee had maintained his bank accounts. The assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A) challenging the assessment order. Even before the First Appellate Authority the assessee made no compliance. The learned CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO on the ground that the assessee has failed to P a g e | (A.Y.2012-13) VIKRAM BABULAL SHAH furnish documents/evidences to substantiate his claim. The assessee is in appeal before us as against the order of learned CIT(A).

The learned Authorised Representative (AR) for the assessee contended that the assessee may be given one last opportunity to furnish documents/evidences to substantiate the cash deposits reflected in the assessee’s account by producing proper source for the same before the learned AO. The learned Departmental Representative (DR) had nothing to controvert pertaining to the assessee’s request and relied on the decision of the lower authorities.

Having heard the rival submissions and perused the materials on record, we find that the assessee has not made due compliance before the lower authorities. On the request of the learned AR to give one last opportunity to produce documents/evidences before the AO, we deem it fit to remand this to the file of the learned AO for de nova adjudication by considering the evidences that are proposed to be filed on behalf of the assessee on principles of natural justice. The AO is directed to decide this case on merits on perusal of the evidence/documents produced by the assessee.