CHHAMA GARG,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1(2), GHAZIABAD

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals], Aligarh dated 29.06.2018 pertaining to A.Y 2009-10.

Vide Ground Nos. 1 and 2, the assessee has challenged the reopening of the assessment and vide Ground No. 3, the assessee has challenged the addition of Rs. 10.89 lakhs made u/s 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. Vide application dated 22.04.2019, the ld. AR stated that he is withdrawing Ground Nos. 1 and 2. Accordingly, the same are dismissed as withdrawn.

Coming to the surviving ground relating to addition of Rs. 10.89 lakhs, I find that the addition has been made on finding that the assessee has made cash deposit in the bank account to the tune of Rs. 15.39 lakhs. The assessee was asked to explain the source of cash deposit in the bank account. The assessee explained that the money was deposited out of cash business receipts and out of withdrawals made from Kotak Mahindra Bank account.

The contentions of the assessee were verified. The Assessing Officer found that the claim of withdrawals from Kotak Mahindra Bank amounting to Rs. 21.61 lakhs cannot be considered as the same was utilised by way of debit entries to M/s Landcraft Developers amounting to Rs. 19.52 lakhs. The Assessing Officer was of the opinion that the assessee has no plausible explanation to offer with regard to credit entry of Rs. 21.90 lakhs in the savings bank account with Kotak Mahindra Bank and, accordingly, made an addition of the same.

The assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A) and explained the deposits made in the bank account.

After considering the facts and detailed submissions as well as the remand report of the Assessing Officer, the ld. CIT(A) was convinced with the deposits in so far as credit entry of Rs. 5 lakhs is concerned. The opening cash balance of Rs. 4 lakhs and cash withdrawal from Kotak Mahindra totalling to Rs. 6 lakhs were also accepted. However, the deposit to the extent of Rs. 10.89 lakhs was not found to be explainable, hence the same was accordingly confirmed.

Before me, the ld. AR stated that the assessee is filing return of income under presumptive tax u/s 44AF of the Act and is, therefore, not bound to maintain books of account. It is the say of the ld. AR that the deposits have been made out of current year’s sales and also from the realisation from debtors. However, the counsel for the assessee could not submit any documentary evidences in relation to current year’s sales nor he could demonstrate that there was any recovery from debtors. Whatever evidences have been furnished by the assessee have been considered by the CIT(A) while reducing the addition of Rs. 21.90 lakhs to Rs. 10.89 lakhs. Since there is nothing to support the contention of the ld. AR, I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). Accordingly, this ground is dismissed.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in is dismissed. The order is pronounced in the open court on 23.04.2019.