DHANANJOY DAS ADHIKARI,PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. ITO WARD 27(2) HALDIA, HALDIA

It was submitted by the ld AR that the assessee is a retired Principal of Palpara College, Midnapore. It was the submission that he retired in 2004. He is suffering from dementia. He is under treatment. The assessee had a habit of withdrawing his pension from the bank account and depositing it in other accounts. Ld.AR drew my attention to page 39 of the paper book which is copy of the bank statement with Finacle wherein on 01.09.2016 the assessee has withdrawn Rs.9 lakhs from his bank account. The ld. AR further drew my attention to page 35 of the paper book which is the copy of the bank statement with Contai Cooperative Bank Ltd. wherein on 02.09.2016 the assessee had deposited Rs.9 lakhs. Ld.AR further drew my attention to page 39 of the paper book wherein on 08.11.2016 the assessee has withdrawn Rs.3,40,000/- and at page 75 the assessee has against deposited Rs.3,54,000/- on 10.11.2016 in Contai Cooperative Bank Ltd. It was the submission that such withdrawals from one bank account and depositing into another bank account was the problem that has been caused by the assessee. It was the submission that now the assessee is bedridden. It was the submission that in the course of assessment the Assessing Officer had issued notice u/s.143(2) of the Act and 142(1) of the Act wherein the assessee has to explain the cash deposit in the bank account. The assessment order had been passed in 2019. It was the submission that the assessee’s wife has categorically intimated the Assessing Officer that the assessee is suffering from dementia and he is hospitalized. The Assessing Officer in para 3.1 of his order has extracted the three bank accounts and the cash deposit therein without considering the transfer deposits and had arrived at an addition of Rs.17,55,000/-. It was the submission that each entry where the cash has been deposited has a contra withdrawal entry. It was the submission that the assessee admittedly could not provide the details before the Assessing Officer as he was not assisted by his authorized representative. The assessee’s wife’s reply was not accepted by the Assessing Officer and the addition has been made. It was the submission that when the appeal was before the ld. CIT(A) the assessee was again hospitalized and the assessee’s wife was no more. It was the submission that there was no one to look after the affairs of the assessee and this has led to the confirmation of the assessment order also. Ld.AR submitted that every entry can be explained and he has also taken me to the bank accounts which shows the various transactions which shows that the cash withdrawals from one bank account and deposits into the other accounts. It was the submission that the addition as made by the Assessing Officer and as confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is liable to be deleted.

In reply, ld. Sr. DR submitted that the issues may be restored to the file of the ld.AO for examination.

I have considered the rival submissions. The assessee is admittedly is 80 years of old person. He is suffering from dementia and no practical purpose would be served in restoring the issues in this appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer, especially when the bank accounts were available before the Assessing Officer and the transactions were also co-related with the bank accounts. This co-relation has also been shown by the ld.AR on behalf of the assessee. This being so, as it is noticed that the deposits into the bank account were from the other bank accounts of the assessee, I am of the view that the addition in the impugned appeal is not called for. Consequently, the addition as made by the ld.AO and as confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) stands deleted.