GAJANAN SAKHARAM CHAVAN,,LATUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, LATUR

This appeal was filed with a delay of 321 days. The assessee filed a notarized affidavit dated 27-05-2017 explaining the reasons for delay along with Doctor Certificate dated 23-05-2017 supporting the reasons explained by the assessee. After hearing both the parties, we find that the reasons

The only issue to be decided is as to whether the CIT(A) justified in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Heard both parties and perused the materials available on record. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found cash deposits made by the assessee in his saving bank account of State Bank of India. To verify the source of such cash deposits, the Assessing Officer asked details from assessee. The assessee filed details of which are reflecting in the assessment order at page No. 2. According to Assessing Officer the details filed by the assessee were not relevant and requested to file further documentary evidence. The Assessing Officer examined the details as filed by the assessee and held cash deposits to an extent of Rs.6,50,000/- as explained and added the remaining amount of Rs.17,70,000/- (Rs.24,20,000/- - Rs.6,50,000/-) u/s. 69 of the Act.

As aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) along with details of explanation. According to CIT(A) those details were filed for first time and treating the same as additional evidence sought remand report from Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer submitted a reply on 13-01-2015 stating that explanation of the assessee is not acceptable in view of specific provisions of Rule 46A which provides assessee shall not be entitled to produce additional evidences before Appellate Authority except in the circumstances provided

Coming to the merits of the case as discussed above, the Assessing Officer found cash deposits to an extent of Rs.24,20,000/- and the fact remains admitted emanating from the assessment order as well as impugned order, the assessee filed details before the Assessing Officer. The contention of Shri Sunil Ganoo, the ld. AR is that all the details were filed before the Assessing Officer and it was explained in a summary manner and could not be properly explained due to lack of professional help. We find, out of Rs.24,20,000/- cash deposits the Assessing Officer held Rs.6,50,000/- as explained and added remaining amount of Rs.17,70,000/- as unexplained. Therefore, we find force in the arguments of Shri Sunil Ganoo, the ld. AR that the details have been filed in the assessment proceedings and the same were not explained properly due to lack of professional help. It clearly shows there was no opportunity for the assessee to give explanation regarding the impugned amount.

It is needless to mention the provision u/s. 69 of the Act explains a duty cast upon the Assessing Officer to seek explanation from the assessee and he shall proceed to make addition under unexplained investment if he finds the assessee offers no explanation or the explanation offered by the assessee is not satisfactory. It is clear that the assessee has to offer an explanation if the same is not satisfactory in the opinion of Assessing Officer then only Assessing Officer shall proceed to make addition u/s. 69 of the Act. In the present case, the fact remains admitted the details were

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.