KANCHAN CHAKRABORTY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-61(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi vide order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1042654910(1) dated 08.04.2022 for A.Y. 2017-18 passed against the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by ITO, Ward-61(2), Kolkata dated 16.12.2019.

Shri K. M. Roy, Ld. AR appeared for the assessee and Shri P. P. Barman, Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.

The assessee has raised the following revised grounds of appeal: “

Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual filed her return of income on 27.07.2017 declaring total income of Rs.3,00,550/-, comprising of income from salary Rs.4,00,000/- and other sources of income of Rs.68,025/-. During the year an amount of Rs.1,55,000/- has been deposited in the bank account in cash. Before the AO, assessee’s contention was that the amount of Rs.1,55,000/- has been deposited in the bank account during the demonetization period out of salary received during the year in cash and past savings. Ld. AO added the said sum of Rs.1,55,000/- as undisclosed income. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who in turn, dismissed it by observing as under: “The only ground of appeal is regarding the appellant’s statement that the amount deposited in the bank account was part of salary income, as that the only source of his income was salary which was received in cash and deposited into the bank. Thus, he has no hidden unexplained source of income. The appellant’s response is a mere statement bereft of any supporting documents evidencing its statement despite the same being asked for in the notices. If as the appellant claims salary of Rs.4,00,000/- was received during the year then the amount on a monthly basis is slightly more than Rs.33,000/- approximately every month. As is a known fact, any payment in excess of Rs.20,000/- has to be necessarily made/received in and is generally made by cheque. Furthermore, no Form 16 reflecting the salary has been produced by the appellant in support of his claim of receipt of salary from which the cash deposit was done. Neither has any copy of contract been furnished by the appellant to show that he was in a contractual agreement in which case also documentation regarding deduction or non-deduction of tax would have existed. The appellant also failed to furnish copies of bank statements in support of his claim that he was depositing the salary in cash in the bank. A more statement by the appellant with no supporting documents being filed till date does not provide any support to his claim that this was salary received by him from which he deposited the sum of Rs. 1,55,000/- in the bank during the demonetization period. The appellant was given multiple and adequate opportunities to furnish evidence including documents in support of the ground of appeal which he failed to do by not furnishing any supporting documents to underscore the genuineness of his claim of source of Rs.1,55,000/- deposited during demonetization period in his bank accounts. In view of the above there is no reason or basis for agreeing with the claim of the appellant regarding the source of the cash deposits in his bank account during the demonetization period. Hence, the only ground of appeal is dismissed.”