MANOJ KUMAR SHAW,HOWRAH vs ACIT, CIR. 47, KOLKATA

आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “ए’’, कोलकाता
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: KOLKATA
Įी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सटèय एवं Įी Ĥदȣप कुमार चौबे, ÛयाǓयक सदèय के सम¢
[Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member &Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member]
I.T.A. No. 486/Kol/2024
Assessment Year: 2017-18

Manoj Kumar Shaw

(PAN: ATMPS 3105 M)
Vs.
ACIT, Circle-47, Kolkata

Appellant /

)
अपीलाथȸ
(

Respondent / Ĥ×यथȸ

Date of Hearing / सुनवाई
कȧ Ǔतͬथ
30.12.2024
Date of Pronouncement/
आदेश उɮघोषणा कȧ Ǔतͬथ
17.01.2025
For the assessee /
Ǔनधा[ǐरती कȧ ओर से
Shri P. K. Sanghai, FCA

For the revenue / राजèव
कȧ ओर से
Shri Saile Samadder, Addl. CIT Sr. DR

ORDER / आदेश

Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, JM:

This is the appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. CIT(A)] dated
01.02.2024 for AY 2017-18. 2. Brief facts of the case of the assessee is that the assessee engaged in the business of trading and hosiery fabrics and job work of making agreement under the partnership

I.T.A. No. 486/Kol/2024
Assessment Year: 2017-18
Manoj Kumar Shaw firm M/s Shiv Enterprise. The assessee filed his return of income for AY 2017-18
declaring total income at Rs. 12,29,290/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny as there was any issue of cash deposit during demonetization period. Notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued, the assessee uploaded some details. The AO after careful scrutiny of the bank account held that there was unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act amounting to Rs. 41,00,000/- and added the same in the total income of the assessee.
3. The said order has been challenged by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed on the ground that the assessee did not submit any details of customers to whom he made the sales rather assessee reiterated same stand taken before the AO.

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied the assessee preferred the appeal before us.
4. The Ld. Counsel appeared on behalf of the assessee instead of arguing on the merit of the case has submitted that the assessee has been given an opportunity to place the documents before the AO to substantiate his claim regarding the source of income during the demonetization period. The Ld. Counsel submits that due to some unavoidable reasons, the assessee could not be filed the balance sheet, bank statement and sale bills before the AO and now the assessee wants to submit the same before the AO. He has filed documents before us and also filed an Affidavit.
5. The Ld. D.R supports the impugned order.
6. We have perused the order of AO and find that the order has been passed by holding that the assessee is unable to prove that any normal business or otherwise he was possessed of so much cash, the assessee failed to prove this fact that cash deposit during demonetization period are normal business receipt. Before the Ld. CIT(A) also, the assessee only reiterated his previous version. Hence, his case has been dismissed by observing that the assessee did not submit any details of the customers to whom he made the sales, the buyers from whom he bought the raw materials nor the assessee

I.T.A. No. 486/Kol/2024
Assessment Year: 2017-18
Manoj Kumar Shaw submitted the same made by him in financial year subsequent to FY 2016-17 though as per the Ld. CIT(A) onus of proving the source of source of money lies upon the assessee.
Before us, the assessee has filed following documents as follows:

I.T.A. No. 486/Kol/2024
Assessment Year: 2017-18
Manoj Kumar Shaw

He has also filed an Affidavit which are as follows:

I.T.A. No. 486/Kol/2024
Assessment Year: 2017-18
Manoj Kumar Shaw

Considering the facts of the case as well as Affidavit, we are inclined to give an opportunity to the assessee to place his case before the AO. The order of AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is hereby set aside. The AO is directed to pass an afresh order after scrutinizing the documentary evidences filed by the assessee without being prejudice to this order. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order is pronounced in the open court on 17th January, 2025 (Rajesh Kumar/राजेश कुमार) (Pradip Kumar Choubey /Ĥदȣप कुमार चौबे)
Accountant Member/लेखा सदèय Judicial Member/ÛयाǓयक सदèय

Dated: 17th January, 2025

SM, Sr. PS

Copy of the order forwarded to:

Appellant- Manoj Kumar Shaw, 24, S. N Banerjee lane, Howrah-7111106 2. Respondent – ACIT, Circle-47, Kolkata 3. Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi 4. Ld. Pr. CIT- , Kolkata 5. DR, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata (sent through e-mail)By Order

MANOJ KUMAR SHAW,HOWRAH vs. ACIT, CIR. 47, KOLKATA