Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for assessment year 2016-2017. The Assessing Officer brought to tax cash deposits of Rs. 32,58,000/- in the assessee's savings bank account, claiming it was used for business purposes. The assessee deals in retail trade of cement, rods, infra materials, and agricultural products.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to produce any documentary evidence to substantiate their claim before either the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A). The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and found that the contention of the assessee was not acceptable due to the lack of documentary evidence.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee provided adequate evidence for the cash deposits in the savings bank account to be considered part of business activity.
Sections Cited
IT Act
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR
(नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Suresh Chandra Behera, Vs ITO, Ward-1, Balasore At-Khirakoni, Barhapur, PO/PS:Soro, Dist : Balasore PAN No. : DIRPB 6444P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 14/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 14/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order, dated 31.12.2024 passed by the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the assessment year 2016-2017.
It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessment order is a separate order. The Assessing Officer had brought to tax the cash deposit of Rs.32,58,000/- in the savings bank account of the assessee. It was the submission that the bank account was used in the business activity of the assessee. It was the submission that the assessee is in the business of retail trade of cement, rod and other infra materials like order supply of sand, soil, bricks etc. and also retail trade of paddy and other agricultural products in his remote village. It was the submission that even before the ld.CIT(A) proper evidence have not been produced. It was the submission that the assessee may be granted another opportunity to produce the evidence before the Assessing Officer.
In reply, ld.Sr. DR vehemently supported the orders of the ld.AO and ld.CIT(A). It was the submission that the assessee’s business activity itself is questionable. Ld. Sr. DR drew our attention to the assessment order at page 3 para 4 wherein the Assessing Officer himself has stated that the assessee has not provided any explanation regarding the nature of the business. It was the submission that the order of the Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(A) are liable to be upheld.
We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the present facts of the case clearly shows that in pra 5.2 of the order, the ld.CIT(A) has stated that the contention of the appellant/assessee is not acceptable as no documentary evidence was provided by the assessee to prove its claim. As it is noticed that the assessee has not produced any evidence before the ld.AO nor before the ld.CIT(A), therefore, in the interest of justice, the issues are restored to the file of the ld.AO for reajudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard.