TANVEER ALAM,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-32(4), KOLKATA

The brief facts of the case is that the assessee filed the return of income declaring total income of ₹16,14,770/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny on the reason of cash deposit during demonetization period and deduction/ exemption from capital gains. The notice u/s 143(2) has been served but the assessee did not make any compliance. The assessee has been requested to furnish the documents but assessee again failed to comply. The ld. AO assessed the total income at ₹80,94,813/-, when there were no sufficient

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the ld. AR challenges the very impugned order, thereby submitting that the addition u/s 68 of the Act of the alleged ground of unexplained cash deposit to bank account disregarding regularly maintained books of accounts is wrong, erroneous and mis-conceived. The ld. AR further submits that the assessee made submission but that was not properly appreciated by the authorities below. The ld. AR has filed paper books in support of his contention before the Tribunal.

Contrary to that, the ld. DR supports the order of the lower authorities. 05. Upon hearing the submissions of the counsel of the respected parties, we have perused the order of the ld. lower authorities. In the assessment order, the ld. AO has stated that notice u/s 143(2) has been served but the assessee did not make any compliance. It has further been stated by the ld. AO that some specific documents asked from the assessee but assessee has filed only bank statements and failed to comply the notices regarding the documents. It has further been stated by the ld. AO that the assessee made only part compliances. The ld. AO in its operative portion has clearly stated that till date of passing of the order the assessee did not make any compliance in respect of above show cause nor furnished documents as asked for. We have gone through the order passed by the ld. CIT (A) and find that the ld. CIT (A) in its order has also held that in spite of opportunity given by the ld. AO, the assessee failed to adduce any documentary evidences to prove the source of cash deposits. The assessee could not discharge the basic

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