MOHAMMAD NAUSHAD,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 32(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

At the outset, on perusal of the appeal record, it is found that the appeal of the assessee has been filed belatedly by 56 days. The assessee has filed condonation application supported with affidavit for condonation of delay stating therein that the order of the ld. CIT(A) was communicated belatedly for which delay of 56 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal has arisen. It has also been submitted by the assessee that the delay is neither deliberate nor intention but occurred due to circumstances beyond his control and prayed for condonation of delay. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR has also not objected to condone the delay. In view of the above and considering to the contention of the 2 assessee stated in the affidavit, the delay of 56 days in filing the present appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing.

The sole issue involved in the present appeal of the assessee is with regard to treatment of entire credits in bank accounts as business receipts/turnover of the assessee by both the authorities below.

Ld. AR during the course of hearing submitted that the assessee is an individual and the return filed by the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny on account of large cash deposited in his savings bank account. Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee had total deposits of nearly Rs.1,51,25,841/- in his four bank accounts, this included cash and NEFT and cheque deposits. Out of the said deposits, the cash deposits were of Rs.1,06,92,140/-. Rs.44,33,701/- was the NEFT, cheque deposits and ATM withdrawals. Consequently the AO had asked the assessee to explain the cash deposits of Rs.1,06,92,140/-. The assessee had not responded the same. Accordingly the AO had taken into consideration of the fact that the assessee had filed his return u/s.139(1) of the Act and had filed his return disclosing an income u/s.44AB of the Act. In the return filed u/s.44AB of the Act, the gross receipts was shown at Rs.44,55,200/-. As the assessee had been unable to explain the difference between the business turnover disclosed at Rs.44,55,000/- and the total deposits of Rs.1,51,25,841/-, the AO treated Rs.1,06,70,641/- as the undisclosed income of the assessee. The AO had treated the same as turnover of the assessed and estimated income at 13.66%. Ld.AR submitted that the ld.CIT(A) had reduced the estimation to 8%. It was submitted by the ld.AR 3 that the assessee is in a position to disclose every entry in the books of account and, therefore, ld. AR prayed that the assessee may be given another opportunity to substantiate its claim before the AO.

On the other hand, ld.Sr. DR supported the order of the ld. AO.

I have considered the rival submission of both the parties and perused the material available on record. As it is noticed that the assessee has not explained the details of the cash deposit in his bank account, therefore, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the ld. AO for readjudication afresh after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. At the same breath, I also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate with the proceedings before the ld. AO, failing which the ld. AO shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and merits based on the materials available on record. Thus, the grounds raised