BHAWANI SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 4(1), JPR, JAIPUR

3. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 419 days in filing of the appeal by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay with following prayers:

Brief Facts:The assessee has acted as an RTO (Road Transport Office) agent during the year under consideration and earns commission income which Bhawani Singh vs. ITO comes under the basic exemption limit. Therefore assessee did not file the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. However Ld.AO received information in respect of assessee that case deposit transaction in the saving account operated with HDFC bank amounted to Rs.1963000/- and Ld.AO initiated the assessment proceeding u/s 147 of the Act considering it to be undeclared income. The assessee filed its return of income in response to the notice so issued however the proceedings could not attended by the assessee. Ld.AO completed the assessment proceedings ex-parte and pass the order while assessing income of Rs.2122830/- by adding Rs.1963000/- on account of alleged unexplained cash depositin bank account. The assesse filed an appeal against the Ld.AO order before CIT(A), NFAC and the appeal proceedings were also completed ex parte while confirmingaddition of Rs.1963000/- through order of ld. CIT(A), NFAC on dt.03-11-2023 which is being contested under this appeal. The copy of order issuedon03-11-2023 and accordingly the appeal was to be filed on or before 1-1-2024 i.e. within 60 days from the date of receiving of order. However now the appeal is being filed on 24.03.2025 i.e. with the delay of 448Days and therefore this prayer for condonation of delay is being made. The grounds for the prayer are as follows: Our Submission: 1.1 Reason for delay in filing of appeal: In this case the order of ld. CIT(A)- NFAC was received by Shri Mukesh Agarwal, CAwho was hired by the assessee from past 2 years to look after all tax related matters. Shri Mukesh Agarwal has given his own e-mail id for communication from income tax department and therefore the order also was received on the e-mail id of Shri Mukesh Agarwal, CAwho was supposed to inform the assessee and take necessary action on the order of ld. CIT(A)-NFAC which was received by him. However Shri Mukesh Agarwal, CA did inform about the receipt of the order to the assessee Shri Bhawani Singh nor any other action was taken to contest the matter. On February 20th, 2025a physical notice for penalty proceedings dt.10/02/2025 was received by the assesse from jurisdictional income tax officer and then he contacted his CA Shri Mukesh Agarwal. Still ShriMukeshAgarwal did not Bhawani Singh vs. ITO respond satisfactorily and therefore, the assessee later contacted Shri Nikhilesh Kataria to check the matter. Thereafter only the assessee came to know about the entire matter and accordingly the appeal is being filed before the Hon’ble Bench. 1.2 Genuine and bona fide reasons: It is submitted thatthe assessee remain totally unaware of the matter as Shri Mukesh Agarwal, CAwas looking after the tax related matters and the assessee completely relied upon Shri Mukesh Agarwal, CA for all sorts of compliances including filing of appeals, checking of communication from the department etc. Shri Mukesh Agarwal, CAhas given his own e-mail id for communication and also did not inform about the disposal of the appeal and as such the assessee remained uninformed about the disposal of the appeal. The reason advanced is completely genuine and bona fide reason which is very much plausible under the circumstances and therefore, has to be accepted. 1.3 No negligence on the part of the assessee: It is submitted that there has been no negligence on the part of the assessee in as much as he was unaware of order passed by the ld. CIT(A) and it was Shri Mukesh Agarwal, the CAof the assessee who was aware of the order and due to mistake/ omission on the part of his part, delay is caused in the present matter. 1.4 No advantage or benefit to the assesseein delayed filing of the appeal: It is submitted thatthere is no advantage with the assessee in delaying the filing of appeal and this was only for the genuine and bona fide reasons as stated above that the appeal got delayed. In contrast it has jeopardized the interest of the assessee as the appeal itself has got delayed and this remains subject to one more prayer before the Hon’ble Bench. 1.5 No prejudice caused to the department in case the application is accepted: We may further submit that no prejudice is caused to the revenue in so far as the appeal will only be decided on merits and in case the demand is otherwise found correct on merits, the same will sustain. In these circumstances it would be reasonable on the part of your honoursto allow the admission of appeal to be decided on merits. 1.6 Not admitting the application will hugely risk the financial standing of the assessee: It is also submitted that there is huge demand in the present matter and as such non admission of appeal will hugely impact the financial status of the assessee. In the present case a massive demand has been raised against the assessee which if not contested would deteriorate the financial condition of the assessee.

Bhawani Singh vs. ITO 1.7 Allowing of application will meet principle of natural justice: It is well settled law that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other than the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. For this proposition we may refer to the following decisions: (i) Hon'ble Apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katji&OrsCivil Appeal No.460 of 987 dt.19.02.1987 held that when substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because nondeliberate delay. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately or on account of culpable negligence or on a malafide. The litigation does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay, in fact he is on serious risk. (ii) Improvement Trust vs. Ujagar Singh (Supreme Court) CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2395 of 2008 dated 26.06.2010 Unless mala fides are writ large, delay should be condoned. Matters should be disposed of on merits and not technicalities. The Appellant, a local authority, acquired land belonging to one of the Respondents for a development scheme in 1988. As the Appellant did not pay the compensation amount despite notice, the property was auctioned and sale confirmed in favour of the highest bidder in 1992. (a) While considering an application for condonation of delay no straitjacket formula is prescribed to come to the conclusion if sufficient and good grounds have been made out or not. Each case has to be weighed from its facts and the circumstances in which the party acts and behaves. From the conduct, behaviour and attitude of the appellant it cannot be said that it had been absolutely callous and negligent in prosecuting the matter; (b) Justice can be done only when the matter is fought on merits and in accordance with law rather than to dispose it of on such technicalities and that too at the threshold; (c) Unless malafides are writ large on the conduct of the party, generally as a normal rule, delay should be condoned. In the legal arena, an attempt should always be made to allow the matter to be contested on merits rather than to throw it on such technicalities. Apart from the above, the appellant would not have gained in any manner whatsoever, by not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. It is also worth noticing that delay was also not that huge, which could not have been condoned, without putting the Bhawani Singh vs. ITO respondents to harm or prejudice. It is the duty of the Court to see to it that justice should be done between the parties; The ratio of above decisions is very much applicable on the facts and circumstances of the present case and as such the delay is prayed to be condoned. 1.8 Affidavit enclosed: We are enclosing herewith an affidavit of Shri Bhawani Singh dt.06.03.2025 in support of the above application affirming the above contents Therefore, it is prayed that the application for condonation of delay may please be admitted and appeal be decided on merits.

3.1 The ld. AR of the assessee in addition to the written submission vehemently argued that the reason for delay in filling the appeal is same as to the non-compliance before the ld. CIT(A). He stated that since the matter was given to counsel and his email id was mentioned in Form no. 35 where no notice were served. This fact is evident from the bottom line at page 5 of the order of the ld. CIT(A) wherein ld. CIT(A) mentioned that the notices were issued at the designated email address of the assessee and not to his counsel though the assessee submitted those email ID. Ld. CIT(A) did not considered the submission made and merely dismissed the appeal of the assessee without dealing with the submission placed on record.

Based on that fact he stated that the delay be condoned. the arguments and material placed on record he did not object on the facts mentioned in the application for condonation of delay.

3.3 We have heard the contention of the parties and perused the materials available on record. The prayer by the assessee for condonation of delay of 419 days has merit and we concur with the submission of the assessee and arguments placed on record. Thus the delay of 419 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC) as the assessee is prevented by sufficient cause.

“7. The issue of non-compliance by assessee at appellate stage has been considered and decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Various High Courts as discussed below:

"Now the Act does not give any power of dismissal. But it is axiomatic that no court or tribunal is supposed to continue a proceeding before it when the party who has moved it has not appeared nor cared to remain present. The dismissal, therefore, is an inherent power which every tribunal possesses.

"That every court or judicial body or authority, which has a judicial body duty to decide a list between two parties, inherently possesses the power to dismiss a case in default. Where a case is called up for hearing and the party is not present, the court or the judicial or quasi-judicial body is under no obligation to keep the matter pending before it or to pursue the matter on behalf of the complainant who had instituted the proceedings. That is not the function of the court or, for that matter of a judicial or quasi judicial body. In the absence of the complainant, therefore, the court will be will without its jurisdiction to dismiss the complaint for non prosecution. So also, it would have the inherent power and jurisdiction to restore the complaint on good cause being shown for the non appearance of the complainant.”

4 The Hon'ble ITAT Delhi (ITR No.2006/Del/2011 dt. 19.12.2001) in the case of Whirlpool of India Ltd. v. DCIT had dismissed appeal for non attendance at hearings, inferring that assessee was not interested in prosecuting of appeal.

Bhawani Singh vs. ITO 5 In the case of Chadha Finlease Ltd. V. ACIT (ITA No. 3013/Del/2011 date of order 20.12.2011) the Hon'ble ITAT Delhi had dismissed the appeal for non- attendance at hearings.

6 In a decision in the case of CIT v. Gold Leaf Capital Corporation Ltd. on 02.09.2011 (ΙΤΑ No.798 of 2009), the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had held that a negligent assessee should not be given many opportunities just because that quantum of amount involved is high. Necessary course of action is to draw adverse inference; otherwise it would amount to give premium to the assessee for his negligence. When the assessee is non-cooperative, it can naturally be safely concluded that the assessee did not want to adduce evidence as it would expose falsity and non genuineness."

GOA 1-3: Not pressed GOA 4: Rs.1963000/- Ld. AO erred in making addition on account of unexplained deposit of cash Bhawani Singh vs. ITO Brief Facts: The assessee is a RTO (transport) agent for the last 15 years and a member of Jaipur Transport Agent Association. The assessee is earning income by way of fees etc. in consideration of doing license and similar work at Regional Transport Office (RTO), Rajasthan State on behalf of clients. The assessee is a member of Jaipur Transport Agent Association since 16-9-2008 with membership no.162 as clear from the membership card placed at PB 3. During the year, no return of income was filed by the assessee as the total income remained below the taxable limit for the relevant year i.e. AY 2011-12. On the basis of information received by the AO that the assessee has deposited cash to the tune of Rs.1963000/-,the proceedings were initiated u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by issuing notice u/s 148 on dt.28-3-2018. Thereafter certain more notices were issued to the assessee however no compliance could be made by the assessee. Later the assessee filed return in response to notice u/s 148 on dt.12-11-2018 a copy of which is placed at PB 14 and copy of return form is placed at PB 15-16. However no details or information could be submitted by the assessee for the reasons mentioned before the ld. CIT(A) as is appearing from the copy of reply placed at PB 1-2. As such the ld. AO proceeded to pass an ex parte assessment adding the entire alleged cash deposit of Rs.1963000/- while assessing the returned income by the assessee. The assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) on dt.7-1-2019 (CIT(A) page 1 para 1). Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee duly filed its reply alongwith supporting documents vide letter dt.15-10-2019 in the physical mode as would appear from the order of the CIT(A) (page 3 para 4). Later the appeal was migrated to Faceless Appeals Centre in terms of notification no.76 of 2020 in S.O. 3296 (E) dt.25-9-2020 issued by CBDT. No compliance of further notices could be made in faceless appeal. The ld. CIT(A) while holding that the explanation offered by the assessee as general in nature rejected the appeal of the assessee. Now this second appeal by the assessee. Our Submission 1.1.1 Incorrect finding of fact recorded by the ld. AO: At the outset it is submitted that the ld. AO at page 1 para 1 mentioned that in response to the notice issued u/s 148 no return of income is filed. However this finding of the ld. AO is Bhawani Singh vs. ITO completely incorrect in as much as the assessee has duly filed return of income on dt.12-11-2018 and a copy of the same is placed at PB 14-16. The assessment was completed on dt.10-12-2018 and interestingly the ld. AO duly assessed the income declared by the assessee at Rs.159828/- and as such the source of income declared by the assessee has duly been accepted by the ld. AO also. The same is being discussed in later part of the submission. 1.2.1 Complete submission alongwith evidences placed before the ld. CIT(A): It is further submitted that the assessee duly made reply before the ld. CIT(A) on dt.15-10-2019 along with supporting documents. A perusal of the reply as appearing in the order of ld. CIT(A) at page 3 of its order would reveal that a complete and justified explanation was given by the assessee along with necessary evidences. The reply has been discussed in detail in later paras. Therefore the ld. CIT(A) was incorrect in holding that the reply of the assessee was general in nature whereas the reply was enough to decide the appeal on merits. 1.2.2 The ld. CIT(A) disposed the appeal in a casual manner: It is submitted that the assessee brought on evidences on record to support its case and the same is mentioned by the ld. CIT(A) also at page 5 of its order. These were vital evidences to prove that the assessee was indulged in the business as a RTO agent and that whatever cash deposit has been made by the assessee were on account of such business activities. Despite this the ld. CIT(A) held that the reply of the assessee is general in nature which is certainly unjustified being against the principle of natural justice as the evidences go deep to the matter affecting the outcome of the appeal and therefore, the findings of the ld. CIT(A) deserves to be quashed. 1.3.1 Cash deposit of Rs.1720700 only and not Rs.1963000 as taken by ld. AO: The ld. AO stated that the assessee made cash deposit of Rs.1963000 in its bank accounts. However, it is submitted that the cash deposited by the assessee stands at Rs.1720700/- only with following details: Rs.1680100 HDFC Bank (PB 5-7) Rs.40600 Dena Bank (filed with written submission) Rs.1720700 Total cash deposit The detailed table of cash deposit is appearing at the subsequent para in the submission.

Bhawani Singh vs. ITO This fact was duly stated before the ld. CIT(A) along with necessary evidences as would be clear from the reply submitted before the ld. CIT(A) as is mentioned in the earlier para. As the cash deposit is clearly appearing from the bank statement and the same was submitted before the ld. CIT(A) also, the cash deposit is to be accepted at Rs.1720700 only. 1.3.2 Source of cash deposit - Assessee a RTO agent: It is submitted that the assessee is a RTO agent for 15 years who do work on behalf of clients for getting licenses, depositing statutory fees like road tax etc. on behalf of clients. The membership card of the assessee as issued by the Jaipur Transport Agent Association is placed at PB 3. The clients deposit cash in account of the assessee or assessee also deposit the cash advance received from the clients. This cash is on account of road tax, license fees etc. which is to be deposited by the assessee with the RTO office. Accordingly, after depositing of cash, the assessee withdraws the cash as and when required to be paid to the RTO, Rajasthan State on behalf of the clients. 1.3.3 Nature of cash deposit duly explained by Jaipur Transport Agent Association: It is important to note that even the association of which the assessee is a member fully explained the modus operandi of working of the assessee. The letter issued by the Jaipur Transport Agent Association of which the assessee is a member is placed at PB 4. In the letter so issued it has clearly been mentioned that deposit of cash and later withdrawal thereof is a regular feature of working of the assessee. It is also explained that the tax is paid by withdrawing cash from the bank account and sometime direct payment is also made from the bank account. This letter was duly placed before the ld. CIT(A) the authenticity of which remain undoubted and therefore, on the basis of letter itself the explanation offered by the assessee has to be accepted. 1.3.4 Cash receipts (against taxes etc.) issued by Regional Transport Office (RTO), Government of Rajasthan mentioning name of assessee Enclosed: We are enclosing herewith some of the cash receipt issued by the RTO office, Rajasthan. These receipts are against the deposit of road tax etc. on account of different vehicles and placed at PB 8-13. Following is visible from the receipts of RTO office: a. Vehicle nos. are clearly mentioned in the cash receipt issued b. Name of depositor is mentioned at the bottom of the receipts Bhawani Singh vs. ITO c. Receipts are issued against state taxes like road tax etc. These receipts were before the ld. CIT(A) along with the detailed reply and evidences however ld. CIT(A) has not taken into consideration these fundamental issues and explanation under consideration. 1.4.1 No change in nature of business of the assessee: As already submitted that the assessee was in the business of working as agent for last 15 years and there was no change in the business of the assessee in the year under consideration also. In the preceding year also, the assessee has declared income from the same business and declared total income of Rs.159040/-. The copy of return of income filed by the assessee for the preceding year i.e. AY 2010-11 is placed at PB 17. 1.5.1 Break-up of cash deposit of Rs.1720700/-: As already submitted that the assessee is indulged in the business of depositing of taxes etc. on behalf of clients and as such the deposits are made against the withdrawals to be made to pay taxes etc. During the year the cash deposit stood at Rs.1720700/- and as appearing from the submission before ld. CIT(A) the net cash deposit stood at Rs.493900/- after considering the withdrawals made. Thus during the year net cash deposit stood at Rs.493900/- only which fact is not contradicted by the ld. CIT(A) also. 1.6.1 Business receipt of Rs.1390806/- duly declared against net cash deposit of Rs.493900/-: It is important to mention that the assessee has duly declared the business receipt at Rs.1390806/- as appearing at Column BP-E1 (PB 16) in the return of income filed by the assessee (PB 14-16) for the year under consideration. The assessee has declared 8% of such receipt as its income under the provisions of section 44AD of the Act at Rs.140589 and Rs.19239 was declared as income from other sources declaring total income at Rs.159828. Thus the cash deposit is fully explained in the present matter as being covered by the total business receipts declared by the assessee. 1.6.2 Business receipts of Rs.1390806 assessed by the ld. AO also:The income of Rs.159828 as declared by the assessee on total business receipt of Rs.1390806/- is duly assessed by the ld. AO. In the assessment order it will be seen that the ld. AO has mentioned the income declared by the assessee on page 2 of the assessment order at Rs.159828/- and taken in to consideration the same while assessing the total income of the assessee.

Bhawani Singh vs. ITO As the net cash deposit is already covered by the total business receipts declared by the assessee and therefore, there is no justification for making further addition on account of cash deposit. 1.7.1 Evidences not rejected by the ld. CIT(A): As already submitted that the assessee has submitted some vital evidences like its membership card, letter from the association, evidences of cash deposit with RTO etc. and these evidences has nowhere been rejected by the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the authenticity of the evidences is not in question and otherwise also, evidences are third party and even Govt. evidences and not any self serving documents. 1.7.2 No evidence of cash deposit being undisclosed income of the assessee or not relating to the business of the assessee: It is submitted that the assessee has clearly proved that he was engaged in the business as a RTO agent and he was earning from this source of income for last 15 years. However, in contrast there is nothing on record to suggest that the cash deposit was undisclosed income of the assessee and not business receipts as claimed by the assessee. As already submitted that the ld. CIT(A) In such circumstances where the evidences furnished by the assessee not being in question and no contrary evidences being brought on record by the lower authorities, the cash deposit made by the assessee has to be accepted as the business receipts which has already been brought to taxation. 1.8.1 Decision of Hon’ble P & H High Court directly applicable in the matter: In the matter of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SURINDER PAL ANAND 242 CTR 61 (P&H)(HC), the hon’ble high court has given the following finding: “8. Once under the special provision, exemption from maintaining of books of account has been provided and presumptive tax @ 8 per cent of the gross receipts itself is the basis for determining the taxable income, the assessee was not under obligation to explain individual entry of cash deposit in the bank unless such entry had no nexus with the gross receipts. The stand of the assessee before CIT(A) and the Tribunal that the said amount of Rs. 14,95,300 was on account of business receipts had been accepted. Learned counsel for the appellant with reference to any material on record, could not show that the cash deposits amounting to Rs.14,95,300 were unexplained or undisclosed income of the assessee 9. In view of the above position, we are unable to hold that any substantial question of law arises in this appeal.

Bhawani Singh vs. ITO In the present case also the assessee has already shown the cash deposit as business receipts of the assessee and there being no evidence that the same is unexplained or undisclosed income of the assessee, the income declared by the assessee is to be accepted.

1.8.2 Other decision: In the case of BalasubramaniamPalaniappan vs. Income Tax Officer dt.21-5-2024 it has been held that once the ld. AO accept the business income of the assessee, the entire cash deposit in bank account has to be accepted as business receipts of the assessee and net profit @8% is to be applied on the same The copy of the decision is enclosed herewith. In light of above facts and circumstances of the case the income declared by the assessee and assessed by the ld. AO is to be accepted while deleting the addition on account of unexplained deposit of cash.”

Explanation on mentioning of bank account number in the return filed by the assessee: During the course of hearing the Hon’ble Bench sought an explanation regarding mentioning of bank account number in the return filed by the assessee. Explanation: In this regard please note that the ITR form has already been submitted in the paper book and is placed at PB 15-16. In the ITR form only bank account for claiming of refund needed to be declared. Accordingly at sr.21 (PB 15) the bank account no. 095410006654 of Dena Bank has duly been disclosed. The extract of the ITR form is as follows:

The deposit in the Dena bank has duly been considered as appearing at page 3 of written submission and included in total deposit of Rs.1720700/- The copy of HDFC bank account has already been submitted which has been mentioned by the ld. AO himself also in its order. As required, the copy of Dena Bank account and copies of two case laws are enclosed herewith. 8. To support the contention so raised in the written submission reliance was placed on the following evidence / records / decisions:

Sr. Particulars Pages 1. Response dt. 15.10.2019before Ld.CIT(A) 1-2 2. Copy of membership ID card issued by Jaipur Transport Agent 3 Association 3. Copy of Jaipur Transport Agent Association letter dt. 10.10.2019 4 4. Copies of HDFC Bank account statement for the period from 5-7 dt.01.04.2010 to 31.03.2011 5. Some copies of cash deposit receipts from Regional Transport 8-13 Officer, Jaipur against fee deposited in cash by the assessee on behalf of clients 6. Copy of ITR ack. and form for AY 2011-12 14-16 7. Copy of ITR ack. for AY 2010-11 17

9. The ld. AR of the assessee in addition to the above written submission so filed vehemently argued that the assessee has filed a detailed written submission before the ld. CIT(A). Instead of dealing with that submission ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal considering the non- compliance of the notices. The assessee while filling the return of income has already disclosed that bank account as submitted in the written submission. The assessee while filling the return of income offered the offered the turnover of Rs. 13,90,806/- [ page 16 of the paper book ]. Ld. assessee has already filed the return of income and even the addition is made in addition the return of income filed. The assessee filed the return of income on 12.11.2018 and the copy placed on record at page 14 to 16 of the paper book. Ld. AO has accepted the source of income and thereby separately charging the deposit is taxing the same income twice. The ld. AO also not correctly calculate the amount of cash deposited it was Rs. 17,20,700/- only. The breakup of the same is Rs. 16,80,100/- in HDFC bank and 40,600/- in Dena Bank. Since the assessee has already filed ITR declaring his written there is no need to separately charged the cash deposit.

Vide ground no. 4 the assessee challenges the addition of Rs.

19,63,000/- made by the ld. AO and sustained by the ld. CIT(A) without dealing with the merits of the submission made before him. The ld. AR of the assessee submitted that though the assessee could represent their case but even otherwise ld. AO as well as ld. CIT(A) did not consider the facts already on record and has not rendered the justice. Looking to the matter being old he prayed that the matter be decided based on non- controverted material placed on record.

The brief facts related to the dispute on hand are that revenue was having the information that the assessee has (i) (Deposited Cash of Rs.

10,00,000/- or more in saving bank A/c) made transaction amount of Rs. 12,12,000/- in HDFC Bank Ltd. (ii) (Deposit in cash aggregating Rs. 2,00,000/- or more with a banking company during any one day) transaction amount of Rs. 6,50,000/- total transaction of Rs. 19,63,000/- during the F.Y.

2010-11. As there was noncompliance of various notice from the side of the assessee he choose to remain absent. Since, the assessee could not represent ld. AO made the addition of Rs. 19,63,000/- thereby passing the order u/s. 144 of the Act and thereby assessee . Accordingly, ld. AO assessed the income at Rs. 21,22,830/- [ including the returned income at Rs. 1,59,828/- ]. The assessee challenged that order of the assessment wherein he engaged a counsel. As argued before us, that the assessee made the submission on 15.10.2019 though his counsel and stated in detailed submission which has not been considered by the ld. CIT(A) and he held that the assessee has not submitted any evidence on the contention raised and thereby he dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

Before us ld. AR of the assessee at bar submitted that he does not want to press ground no. 1 to 3 and ground no. 5. He also submitted that fact in writing also. Ground no. 6 being general does not require any finding.

Now the left out Ground is No. 4 wherein the assessee challenges the addition of Rs. 19,63,000/- being the amount of unexplained cash deposited by the assessee in his bank account.

Based on the submission made by the assessee and not being controverted by the ld. DR the bench noted that the assessee has filed the return of income declaring the income at Rs. 1,59,828/-. The ld. AO AO separately charged the cash deposited into the bank account which is already disclosed while filling the return of income. Thus, the same source of income is charged twice. Once while considering the income returned and other as unexplained cash credit. The ld. AO added that as the assessee has not complied the various notices issued to him. Even the ld.

AO issued the show cause notice which remained non-compliant. While doing so ld. AO on the one hand states that assessee did not file any return of income and on the other hand make the addition of cash deposit in addition to the income already considered under the presumptive taxation.

The ld. AO did not utter a single word on the source of income he has taxed while filling the return of income. As is evident from the submission along with the copy of the bank account placed on record the total cash deposited into HDFC bank account is Rs. 16,80,100/- and Dena Bank account Rs. 40,600/-. Thus the total cash deposited is Rs. 17,20,700/- , he also submitted that the assessee has withdrawal of Rs. 11,16,800/- leaving thereby net cash deposit of Rs. 6,03,900/-. Leaving a part if we take the figure of the ld. AO at Rs. 19,63,000/- then the withdrawal is Rs. 11,16,800/- giving the balance amount Rs. 8,46,200/-. The bench also noted that the assessee has offered the turnover of Rs. 13,90,806/- which is more than that as explained we do not see any reason to sustain the addition as the ld. AO through ld. DR did not controverted these facts which are already on record and therefore, ground no. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed as the same income cannot be taxed twice once in the ITR as turnover and another while considering the cash deposit. Based on these observations ground no. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 04/07/2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼ Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh ½ ¼ jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 04/07/2025 *Ganesh Kumar, Sr. PS आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. The Appellant- Bhawani Singh, Jaipur izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward - 4(1), Jaipur 2. 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The ld CIT(A) 5. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 471/JP/2025) 6. vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत