MOLLEY JAYAPRAKASH,TRIVANDRUM vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual, a non-resident Indian, filed return of income for the assessment year 2017-2018 on 26th March, 2018 declaring income of Rs.38,200. Against the said return of income, assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer (“the AO”) vide order dated 26.12.2019 passed u/s.143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) at a total income of Rs.35,49,440. While doing so, the AO made addition of Rs.34,00,000 being cash . Molley Jayaprakash. deposit made as unexplained income of the assessee rejecting the explanation of the appellant that the said cash deposits were made out of past savings. The AO also levied tax u/s.115BBE of the Act. Similarly, the AO made an addition of Rs.19,00,000 being cash deposit made in Canara Bank on 21st October, 2016 and on 24.10.2016 rejecting the explanation of the appellant that the said deposits were made out of sale consideration received on the sale of property in the absence of confirmation from the buyers of the property. Accordingly, the AO made addition of Rs.19 lakh.

Being aggrieved by the assessment order, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO.

Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. It is submitted that the CIT(A) grossly erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.34 lakh rejecting the bonafide explanation of the appellant. He further submitted by placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Smt.P.K.Noorjahan (1999) 237 ITR 570 (SC), that when the assessee offers bonafide explanation in support of the source of cash deposits, the assessing authority is not justified in making the addition. It is further submitted that the lower authorities ought to have accepted the explanation offered by the appellant in support of the cash deposits.