NILESH NANDKUMAR AGARWAL,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1), PUNE

आदेश / ORDER

PER R.S.SYAL, VP :

These appeals by three related but different assessees

relate to the assessment years 2013-14. Since common issue is

raised in all these appeals, I am, therefore, proceedings to

dispose them off by this consolidated order for the sake of

convenience.

ITA No.760/PUN/2018 – Nilesh N. Agarwal :

confirmation of addition of Rs.11,54,662/- on account of non-

genuine business activity/expenses.

made certain cash deposits in his savings bank accounts

maintained with Cosmos bank, Bank of India and HDFC

Bank. On being called upon to present the source of such

deposits, the assessee submitted that the deposits were made

out of cash balance in the cash book. The assessee further

explained that the receipts in cash book were mainly from cash

sales. The Assessing Officer (AO) required the assessee to

produce the books of account which the assessee could not. It

3 ITA Nos.760 to 762/PUN/2018 Nilesh N. Agarwal and 2 others

was however maintained that he made purchases in cash and

also effected sales in cash and the deposits in the banks were

out of such cash sales. The AO took up the figure of cash

sales at Rs.29,20,795/- as “Income from other sources”. After

allowing deduction on account of interest and considering the

profit already shown by the assessee at Rs.12,30,197/- along

with certain expenditure booked at Rs.11,54,662/-, the AO

made an addition of Rs.23,84,860/-, comprising of

disallowance of expenditure at Rs.11.54 lakh and non-genuine

sales. The ld. CIT(A) sustained the addition by observing that

the assessee could not produce even a single document to

show that his bank transactions represented business receipts.

The assessee has come up in appeal against the sustenance of

such an addition.

material on record. The assessee has filed a paper book

comprising of 207 pages as additional evidence. The ld. AR

contended that the files containing purchase vouchers etc.

were misplaced and could not be located during the course of

proceedings before the authorities below, as those were kept

4 ITA Nos.760 to 762/PUN/2018 Nilesh N. Agarwal and 2 others

separate when renovation and construction work was going on.

A request was made that a further opportunity should be given

to the assessee to adduce evidence in support of genuineness

of transactions recorded in his bank accounts, which is now

available. In view of the fact that the authorities below have

disbelieved the genuineness of transactions of purchases, sales

and expenses on the ground that supporting vouchers were not

available and the assessee is now claiming to have collected

all such evidence, I am of the considered opinion that the ends

of justice would meet adequately if the impugned order on this

score is set-aside and the matter is restored to the file of AO. I

order accordingly and direct him to frame the assessment

afresh after allowing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the

assessee. It is made clear that the assessee will be at liberty to

lead any fresh evidence in support of his claim which he

considers expedient.

ITA No. 761/PUN/2018 – Anesh N. Agarwal ITA No.762/PUN/2018 – Nandkumar M. Agarwal

admittedly similar to those of Sh. Nilesh N. Agarwal. In the

5 ITA Nos.760 to 762/PUN/2018 Nilesh N. Agarwal and 2 others

case of Sh. Anesh N. Agarwal, the ld. CIT(A) sustained the

addition at Rs.10,56,852/-; whereas in the case of Sh.

Nandkumar M. Agarwal, he sustained the addition at

13,98,470/-. Sh. Anesh N. Agarwal is brother of Sh. Nilesh N.

Agarwal, whose appeal has been disposed off above. Sh.

Nandkumar M. Agarwal is father of Sh. Nilesh N. Agarwal.

In view of the fact that the facts and circumstances of these

two appeals are admittedly similar, following the view taken

hereinabove, I set-aside the impugned orders and remit the

matter to the file of AO. I order accordingly and direct the AO

to frame the assessments afresh in conformity with the

directions given in the case of Sh. Nilesh N. Agarwal above.

statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 21st February, 2019.

Sd/- (R.S.SYAL) उपा�य� उपा�य�/ VICE PRESIDENT उपा�य� उपा�य�

पुणे Pune; �दनांक Dated : 21st February, 2019 सतीश

6 ITA Nos.760 to 762/PUN/2018 Nilesh N. Agarwal and 2 others

आदेश क� क� क� �ितिलिप क� �ितिलिप �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत अ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order is forwarded to : अ�ेिषत आदेश आदेश आदेश अपीलाथ� / The Appellant; 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent; 2. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / 3. The CIT (Appeals)-3, Pune 4. The Pr. CIT-2, Pune िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे “SMC” / 5. DR ‘SMC’, ITAT, Pune; गाड� फाईल / Guard file. 6. // True copy // आदे आदेशानुसार शानुसार/ BY ORDER, आदे आदे शानुसार शानुसार

// True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune

Date 1. Draft dictated on 20-02-2019 Sr.PS 2. Draft placed before author 21-02-2019 Sr.PS 3. Draft proposed & placed JM before the second member 4. Draft discussed/approved JM by Second Member. 5. Approved Draft comes to Sr.PS the Sr.PS/PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS 7. Date of uploading order Sr.PS 8. File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS 9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk 10. Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11. Date of dispatch of Order. *