MAHESH KUMAR SURYAN,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 5(1), NEW DELHI

There is a delay of 43 days in filing of this appeal by the assessee as pointed by the registry in the defect notice. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that there is no such delay and the mistake occurred due to mentioning of the date of service or communication of the order as 15.09.2018 as against 05.11.2018. He accordingly submitted that there is no delay in filing of the appeal by the assessee and the mistake occurred due to a typographical error on account wrong mentioning of the date of receipt or communication of the order. After hearing both the sides the delay in filing of the appeal by the assessee as pointed out by the registry is condoned.

The assessee in his grounds of appeal has challenged the order of the CIT(A) in sustaining the addition of Rs.38,84,000/- made by the Assessing Officer of being unexplained cash deposit in the bank account of the assessee.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and director of Blue Diamond Cargo Services Private Limited. He is deriving salary income from the said company and he is also engaged in trading activities under the name and style of M/s. White Circle Incorporation. He filed his return of income on 31.07.2014 declaring total income of Rs.3,40,810/-. During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has made cash deposit of Rs.23 lacs in the bank account maintained with Corporation Bank and Rs.16 lacs with Central Bank of India. He, therefore, asked the assessee to explain the source of such cash deposit in the two bank accounts on various dates. Considering the arguments advanced by assessee from time to time the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.31,68,000/- being the unexplained cash deposit in the two bank accounts and Rs.7,16,000/- being other unexplained credit in the bank Page | 2 account.

In appeal the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer.

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

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that due to some strained relationship the assessee was not in a position to produce his father and other relatives being the gift received through cheque. He submitted that the various evidences produced before the CIT(A) were not admitted by him being additional evidences. He submitted that given an opportunity the assessee is now in a position to substantiate with evidence to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer regarding the gift ofRs.7,16,000/- which was added by him as unexplained credit and upheld by the CIT(A).

So far as the cash deposit in the bank account is concerned the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that he has prepared a cash flow statement to substantiate the various deposits in the two bank accounts. He submitted that in the interest of justice the assessee should be given one final opportunity to substantiate his case before the Assessing Officer.

The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the CIT(A) and submitted that despite opportunities granted before the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A), the assessee failed to discharge his onus regarding the cash deposits in the two bank accounts and the gift obtained from his father and other relatives. Therefore, no further opportunity should be granted to the assessee and the addition sustained by the CIT(A) should be upheld.

I have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. I have also considered the various decisions cited before me. I find the Assessing Officer in the instant case made addition of Rs.31,68,000/- being unexplained cash deposit in the two bank accounts maintained by the assessee and made addition of Rs.7,16,000/- being other unexplained deposits in the bank account. I find the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer on the ground that assessee failed to discharge the onus cast on him by producing cogent evidence to substantiate the source of such deposits. The Ld. CIT(A) has also rejected the various evidences filed before him being additional evidences in violation of Rule 46 A of IT Rules. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that given an opportunity, he is in a position to substantiate with evidence to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer regarding source of such cash deposit in the bank account and the gift received from his father and other Page | 4 relatives. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice I deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to give one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate the various cash deposits in the two bank accounts and the so called gift received by assessee from his father and other relatives and decide the issue as per fact and law. The grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

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