KAMALKUMAR INDUBHAI GADHAVI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, EARD-3(2)(2), AHMEDABAD

The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the Assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Ahmedabad, dated 30/08/2019 arising in the matter of assessment order passed under s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as "the Act") relevant to the Assessment Year 2011-2012.

The only issue raised by the assessee is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the AO for Rs. 20,14,821/- representing the deposit of cash in the bank account.

The facts in brief are that the assessee in the present case is an individual and claim to be engaged in the business of agricultural operation. There was, inter- alia, deposit of cash amounting to Rs.20,14,821/- in the bank, source of which was explained by the assessee from the agricultural operation. However, the assessee in support of his contention has not filed any supportive document. Thus, the same was treated as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act, by the AO which was added to the total income of the assessee.

The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the Ld.CIT(A), who confirmed the order of the AO by observing as under: 3.10. As regards cash deposit of Rs.20.14.821A the appellant failed to furnish the source and genuineness of such cash deposit in bank account no. 073710031326 with Dena Bank. During remand proceedings the AO has reported that sufficient opportunities were given to the appellant to submit supporting evidence in respect of source of credit entries and cash deposits in bank account. Now the appellant has come with the content/on that the credit entries in the bank account are the gifts received from various family members. It is an afterthought of the appellant that he has submitted the source of cash deposit during assessment proceedings. The appellant has tried to present colorful device by submitting gin confirmation of his family members in respect of source of cash deposit. In the instant appeal, the appellant has miserably failed to explain the source of the deposit in the bank accounts. In view of the above mentioned facts which clearly held that for source of credit u/s. 68 of the IT Act it is the primary duty of the assessee to establish the genuineness. Therefore, this is nothing but only an afterthought of appellant. In view of these facts, the addition made by the for unexplained cash deposit of Rs.20,14,821/- is hereby confirmed. The grounds of appeal are partly allowed.

Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before us.

The Ld. AR before us filed a paper book running from pages 1 to 25 and contended that the assessee by mistake has submitted before the AO that the amount of cash deposit was received from the agricultural operation. As such the source of cash deposit was representing the gift received from the relatives.

On the other hand the Ld. DR vehemently supported the order of the authorities below:

We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. Admittedly, the assessee before the AO has submitted to have received money from the agricultural operation which was utilized in making the deposit in the bank account whereas the assessee before the Ld.CIT(A) has changed his stand by submitting that cash was deposited out of gifts received from relatives.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.