RAJESHKUMAR S MISHRA,MEHSANA vs. ITO, WARD-2, MEHSANA

The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: “1.1 The order passed u/s.250 on 26.2.2018 for A.Y.2008-09 by CIT(A)-GNR, A’bad upholding the addition of Rs.12,18,640/- as unexplained cash deposit u/s 68 is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice. 1.2 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in not considering the submission and explanations made during the course of appellate proceedings. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have allowed reasonable opportunity to the appellant to collect data so as to explain the credits therein. 2.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in upholding the additions of Rs.12,18,640/- towards the cash deposits in bank, though the appellant & Company both had confirmed that the said amounts were given to him to meet with site expenses. 2.2 That in the facts and circumstances of the case as well s in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought not to have upheld the addition of Rs.12,18,640/- as unexplained cash deposit u/s 68. 2.3 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in rejecting the sample expense vouchers produced during appellate as well as remand proceedings.

There is delay of 228 days in filing the present appeal which has been explained by the assessee by giving the reasons for delay. The reasons appear to be genuine hence the delay is condoned.

As per AIR information, the assessee made cash deposits of Rs. 12,18,640/- in saving bank account maintained with Axis Bank Ltd., Mehsana an amount of Rs. 7,37,583/- involved into share transaction. The case was reopened under Section 147 of the Act and various notices under Section 142(1) and 148 were issued to the assessee. The assessee was working at site and has no knowledge of provision of Income Tax Act as per submissions made by the assessee before the CIT(A). The Assessing Officer after taking into account the reply of the assessee made addition of Rs. 12,18,640/- deposited in a saving bank account through cash and addition of Rs. 7,37,583/- on account of share transaction.

Being aggrieved by the assessment order the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee.

The Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee was working with Sai Ambay Organizer Pvt. Ltd. and was getting salary from company. As a part of service the assessee carried out extensive traveling to complete the civil work carried out by the company. The assessee explained before the Assessing Officer that receipt of money from company for making expenditure at various sites of the company which were at remote places of various states and the company provided ATM card and therefore, the Rajeshkumar S Mishra vs. ITO Asst.Year–2008-09 - 3 - assessee utilized on day to day transaction in cash through his saving bank account. The assessee has filed confirmations related to transaction of cash deposits incurring day to day site expenditure of the company. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the company has also filed letter stating therein that the expenses were for the company’s civil work on site. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee has filed certain additional evidences before the CIT(A) in respect of salary account from the books of company, cash book of the company and contra account of advance given to the assessee as well as cash paid vouchers of the company which has been obtained from the assessee. These documents were not taken into account by the CIT(A). Thus, the Ld. A.R. submitted that the addition made therein is not justifiable despite giving all the documents before the CIT(A).

The Ld. D.R. submitted that the assessee has changed his stand from time to time as at the initial stages the assessee claim that he is not drawing regular income and therefore, not filed return of income but at the same time submitted that he was a Director of Sai Ambay Organizer Pvt. Ltd. and also an employee looking after the site of civil work. Thus, the CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the addition.

The Ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A).

Heard both the parties, and perused all the relevant material available on record. From nowhere it emerges that the assessee has not made these expenses related to the work done by assessee in respect of Sai Ambay Organizer Pvt. Ltd. The stand taken by the assessee was not properly taken

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 21/12/2022