SURENDRA ANKUSH MUNDAYE,MAHARASHTRA vs. ITO -WARD KUDAL, ITO -WARD KUDAL

None appeared on behalf of the assessee. A perusal of the order sheet entries shows that this appeal was fixed for hearing a number of times but no one was appearing nor any application seeking adjournment of the case was ever filed. Today also when the name of the assessee was called, nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application seeking adjournment has been filed. Under these circumstances, we deem it proper to decide this appeal on the basis of material available on record and after hearing the Ld. DR.

Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC sustaining the addition of Rs.22,18,088/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) on account of cash deposit by the assessee in his savings bank account maintained with SBI, Kudal branch.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and a salaried employee in an accounting firm. The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment for the impugned assessment year on the ground that the assessee has income escaping assessment amounting to Rs.22,18,088/- being the cash deposited in his savings bank account. Accordingly proceedings u/s 147 were initiated and a notice u/s 148 of the Act dt 27.02.2020 was issued and served on the assessee in response to which the assessee filed his return of income on 01.08.2020 declaring total income of Rs.1,12,195/-. Subsequently statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee in response to which the assessee filed online submissions along with copies of bank statement and income & expenditure account, balance sheet, computation of total income and Form 26AS. Since the assessee was unable to explain the nature and source of cash deposit of Rs.22,18,088/- in his savings bank account maintained with SBI, Kudal branch, the Assessing Officer made addition of the same u/s 68 of the Act. He accordingly determined the taxable income of the assessee at Rs.23,30,280/- as against the returned income of Rs.1,12,195/-.

In appeal the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer on the ground that although there are various withdrawals on different dates but the purpose of deposit and withdrawal has not been explained during the appeal proceedings. The assessee failed to give complete explanation regarding the deposits and withdrawals in the savings bank account maintained with SBI, Kudal branch during the financial year 2012-13. He, therefore, upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that due to the failure on the part of the assessee to explain the nature and source of cash deposit in the savings bank account maintained with SBI, Kudal branch, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.22,18,088/- u/s 68 of the Act. Since the assessee failed to give complete explanation regarding the deposits and withdrawals in the SB account, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. In absence of any material before us to explain the nature and source of cash deposits made in the savings bank account maintained with SBI, Kudal branch as well as the reasons for withdrawals, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC sustaining the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s 68 of the Act is upheld. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly dismissed.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.