SRINIVASAN RAJASEKARAN,HOSUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, HOSUR

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 07.10.2024 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the assessment year 2018-19. 2. Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is general in nature and requires no adjudication.

Ground Nos. 2, 5 & 6 raised by the assessee in challenging the action of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act in short] in the facts and circumstances of the case.

At the outset, we note that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income on 25.07.2018 declaring an income of ₹.8,54,720/- after claiming deduction of ₹.1,50,000/- under Chapter VI-A of the Act. The return filed by the assessee was processed under section 143(1) of the Act vide intimation dated 25.09.2018. Later on, the case has been selected for limited scrutiny towards cash deposit. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked about the reconciliation of the cash deposits made during the year under consideration; however, there was no response from the assessee. Considering the details available on record, the Assessing Officer worked out the cash deposits explained at ₹.35,31,17,361/- and regarding the balance cash deposit amounting to ₹.4,48,46,989/-, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee failed to explain the source of cash deposit, thereby, added to the total income of the assessee by making addition under section 68 of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Since the assessee failed to substantiate the source for the cash deposit, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

The ld. AR Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate filed a paper book containing 270 pages, which includes bank statement, agreement, etc. and submits that the matter may be remanded to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration with reference to reconciliation of cash deposits only.

The ld. DR Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT opposed the submissions of the ld. AR and argued that the assessee failed to furnish reconciliation of the cash deposits made during the year under consideration or bank statement either before the Assessing Officer or before the ld. CIT(A) despite ample of opportunities afforded to the assessee.

Having heard both the parties and on perusal of the assessment order as well impugned order of the ld. CIT(A), we note that the Assessing Officer could not verify the claim of the assessee since the assessee could not furnish the bank statement or reconciliation of the cash deposits made during the year under consideration. We note that during the course of first appellate proceedings, the assessee failed to furnish the bank statement. Before us, the assessee furnished bank statements of various accounts at pages 112 to 262 as well as Form GSTR-9 at pages 263 to 271 of the paper book. Considering the prayer of the ld. AR as well as in the interest of natural justice, we deem it proper to 4 remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide the issue afresh in accordance with law by considering the reconciliation that may be submitted by the assessee. The assessee is also directed to reconcile the cash deposits in the shape of questionnaire annexed with the notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act dated 05.01.2021 without fail. Thus, the grounds raised

Ground Nos. 7 to 10 raised by the assessee are not pressed and accordingly, dismissed as not pressed.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.