SUBRAMANIAN PRABHAKARAN,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO, WARD-1,, TIRUNCHENGODE

income for the relevant assessment year. The A.O on the basis of the informatiion that the assessee had made cash deposits in his bank account maintained with InduInd Bank of Rs. 71,26,450/-, but has not filed the return of income reopened the assessment. The A.O thereafter completed the assessment u/s. 144 of the Act, making an addition of Rs. 54,42,952/- as the assessee had failed to file the return of income as well as the details called for. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs. 54,42,952/-, observing that the assessee had not satisfactorily explained the source of cash deposits. The Ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the addition of 10% of transport receipts, as the assessee was unable to link the cash deposits in the bank with the transport receipts.

At the outset, the Learned Authorized Representative (Ld. A.R.) for the assessee submitted that there was no order u/s. 148A(d) of the Act passed in the assessee’s case before issuing notice u/s 148 as the order uploaded is in the name of another assessee, namely Shri Sellappan Krishnamoorthy. The Ld. A.R. further contended that there was a double addition in respect of the same cash deposits of on the total deposits of Rs.62,44,824/- as business income. It was therefore argued that once the receipts of Rs.62,44,824/- were accepted and 10% thereof was brought to tax as business income, there was no justification for making a further separate addition of Rs.54,42,952/- towards unexplained cash deposits.