NARESH KUMAR CHHOKAR,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO WARD 3 (4), GURGAON

Although a number o f grounds have been raised by the assessee, they all relate to the order o f the C1T(A) in sustaining an addition o f Rs. 13,61,000/- out of Rs. 18,22.000/- made by the AO on account o f unexplained cash deposit in the bank account

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a non-filer o f income-tax return. On the basis o f the information obtained from the system that the assessee has made cash deposit o f Rs. 18,22,000/- in his bank account, the case o f the assessee was reopened u/s 147 o f the Act and notice u/s 148 o f the Act was issued. In response to the notice u/s 148, the assessee filed his return on 01.11.2017 declaring the total income at Rs.7,22,320/-. The AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3)/147 determining the total income at Rs.25,44,320/- wherein he made an addition o f Rs. 18,22,000/- being the cash deposit in the bank account, the source o f which the assessee could not explain properly. Before the CIT(A), the assessee filed various details based on which the ld.CIT(A) called for a remand report from the AO. After considering the rem and report o f the AO and the rejoinder o f the assessee to such remand report, the ld.CIT(A) held that an amount o f Rs.5,22,500/- has been deposited by the father o f the assessee in the bank account. Since the cash withdrawals by the assessee are meager, the ld.CIT(A), after considering a part o f such deposit as * required for household expenses, accepted an amount o f Rs.4,61,000/- to be explained and out of the total deposit of Rs. 18,22,000/- sustained the balance amount of Rs. 13,61,000/-.

Aggrieved with such order o f the CTT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

The Id. Counsel for the assessee filed a chart containing analysis o f monthly bank balance o f the assessee’s father Sliri Bhopal Singh showing regular withdrawals after deposits leaving small balances. Referring to various pages o f the paper book, he submitted that the A O in the order passed u/s 147/143(3) for assessment year 201 1-12 has accepted the cash deposit of Rs. 10,50,000/-. He submitted that the AO for assessment year 2011-12 is 1TO, Ward 2(5), Ghaziabad whereas the order for assessment year 2010-11 has been passed by the AO, W ard 3(1), Gurgaon. He submitted that the substantial agricultural land held by the father o f the assessee has been completely ignored by the lower authorities. He accordingly submitted that the addition sustained by the CIT(A) should be deleted. In his alternate contention, he submitted that he has no objection if the matter is restored to the file o f the AO with a direction to verify all the relevant details and pass appropriate order.

The Id. DR, on the other hand, heavily relied on the order o f the CIT(A). He submitted that the ld.ClT(A) has already given substantial relief to the assessee by considering the various deposits made by the father o f the assessee. For the remaining amount, the assessee was unable explain the source. Therefore, the addition sustained by the CIT(A) should be upheld.

1 have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders o f the AO and the CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf o f the assessee. I have also considered the various decisions cited before me. I find the AO, in the instant case, made addition of Rs. 18,22,000/- being the cash deposits in the bank account by the assessee on the ground that the assessee was unable to explain the source of such cash deposit. I find the ld.CIT(A), after obtaining the remand report

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