PURSHOTAM DABAS,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 21(2), NEW DELHI

The solitary grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 40.50 lakhs as unexplained bank deposits.

Nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee. I have heard the ld. DR at length.

Facts emanating from the assessment order show that the assessee has deposited a sum of Rs. 40.50 lakhs in the bank account with Syndicate Bank, Ghevra, Delhi. The assessee was asked to explain the source of cash deposit. On receiving no plausible reply, the Assessing Officer treated the same as unexplained and made the addition u/s 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short].

The assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A) and furnished additional evidences. The ld. CIT(A) called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer who categorically stated that the additional evidences should not be admitted because the assessee was given ample opportunities to explain his case. Therefore, the assessee does not satisfy the conditions laid down u/r 46A.

The ld. CIT(A), on the basis of remand report, confirmed the addition.

I have given thoughtful consideration to the order of the authorities below. There is no dispute that the assessee did not explain the source of cash deposit in the bank account with Syndicate Bank. It is equally true that the assessee furnished certain evidences during the appellate proceedings. The ld. CIT(A) did call for remand report but the Assessing Officer did not agree to verify those documents and stated that the additional evidences should not be admitted u/r 46A. In my considered opinion and in the interest of justice and fair play, the issue needs fresh adjudication in the light of additional evidences filed by the assessee before the ld. first appellate authority. I, therefore, remit this matter to the file of the Assessing Officer. The assessee is directed to file necessary documentary evidences to explain the source of cash deposit. The Assessing Officer is directed to examine the same and decide the issue afresh after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

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