ASHWINI SHAILESH JOSHI,PUNE vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, PUNE

The sole grievance of the assessee is that Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 8,20,550/- for the alleged unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act for the alleged cash payment given to Ms. Shripad Developers.

At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has not made any cash payment to Ms. Shripad Developers and whatever the payments made to Shripad Developers are through Bank Channel. He also stated that the confirmation from Ms. Shripad Developers is placed on record which is admittedly not filed before the lower authorities.

On the other hand Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A).

I have heard rival contentions and perused the record placed before me. I observe that the assessee is an individual and declared income of Rs. 4,74,603/- in the return of income for A.Y. 2018-19 filed on 23.06.2018. Based on the information received by Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) through INSIGHT Portal regarding goods purchases in cash at Rs. 8,20,550/- during the year under consideration, valid notice u/s 148 of the Act served upon the assessee. Ld. AO called for various information to which regular replies were filed regarding maintaining of various Bank Accounts and payments made for purchase of Flat from Shripad Developers. The issue in dispute is regarding the transaction of purchase of goods at Rs. 8,20,550/-. The assessee has stated that he gave cheques to Shripad Developers towards the additional work to be carried out on the Flat only mentioning the amount and those cheques have been given to the Vendors. It is also submitted that no cash payment was given to Ms. Shripad Developers. However since assessee could not satisfy the Ld. AO above payment of cheque of Rs. 8,20,550/-. Ld. AO concluded that the assessee had made payment in cash and made addition thereof and assessed the income at Rs. 12,95,153/- 6. I further observe that the assessee failed to get any relief from Ld. CIT(A). Before me Ld. Counsel for the assessee firstly stated that the assessee had sufficient explanation for the source of funds given to Shripad Developers and also submitted that the payment for work carried out by vendors on the appellants request has been made through the blank cheques (no name but amount mentioned) given by the assessee to Shripad Developers. He also submitted that the alleged addition could not have been made u/s 68 of the Act. He also referred to the confirmation/letter given by Shripad Developers placed in the appeal set in which M/s. Shripad Developers has confirmed that no cash has been received from the assessee.

I observe that the assessee has furnished the details of various payments made to vendors namely Balaji Constructions, S.J. Industries as well as payment made to Sagar Pardeshi totaling to Rs. 56,05,050/- during the year 2017 and it is claimed that this payment includes the alleged sum of Rs. 8,20,550/-

Under these given facts and circumstances I find that the issue on merit deserves to be restored to the file of Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) for carrying out denovo assessment proceedings after duly considering the documents furnished before this Tribunal and to decide in accordance with law. Needless to mention that proper opportunity of hearing shall be granted to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds of

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