DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI vs. HARI KISHAN RATHI, NEW DELHI

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

It emerges during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have assessed the assessee’s cash deposits of Rs.12,50,000/- as unexplained in his hands, in assessment order dated 30.12.2018 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

Ashish Sidhu 4. Faced with this situation, learned counsel has invited the tribunal’s attention to page 11 in the paper book wherein the concerned bank i.e. M/s Axis Bank has clarified that this assessee/appellant was added as an account holder only on 29.08.2011 as against the assessment year herein i.e. A.Y. 2011-12 involving F.Y. 2010-11. That being the case, learned departmental representative vehemently argues that the above correspondence coming from the bank dated 05.04.2025 is in the nature of the assessee’s additional evidence which has nowhere been verified by the lower authorities.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and the Revenue’s foregoing vehement submissions. I prima facie find merit in the assessee’s case as he has only been added as an account holder in the succeeding financial year; and, therefore, he could not have been assessed for any deposits made in the relevant financial year involving assessment year 2011-12. The fact however remains that the above certificate is in the nature of the assessee’s additional evidence only. I therefore accept the assessee’s case in principle and leave it open for the learned Assessing Officer to verify this limited issue of the above bank certificate, within three effective opportunities subject to a rider that the assessee shall plead and prove the case at his own risk and