NEENA CHOUDHURY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 23(2)/ HOOGLY, HOOGHLY

Ms Neena Choudhury Vs. ITO Wd-23(2), Hgy. Page 2 2. The assessee sole substantive grievance challenges correctness of both the lower authorities action treating her bank deposits of ₹5,11,28,728/- as unexplained investments u/s 69 of the Act.

Learned counsel invites us first of all submitsthat the Assessing Officer made the impugned addition in his assessment order dated 31.03.2015 which has been confirmed in the CIT(A)’s findings under challenge ex parte. He is fair enough in not disputing the clinching fact that the assessee had indeed made cash deposits in her bank account amounting to ₹5,11,28,728/-. Learned counsel only plea during the course of hearing is that the assessee has been acting as an accommodation entry provider throughout wherein she would make cash deposits and issue cheque in favour beneficiary parties thereby deriving commission income only. He seeks to add only the commission element income component than the entire investment in other words. Case law in in DCIT,CC-XXI, Kolkata vs. M/s Safeco Projects P. Ltd., decided on 03.11.2017 adding 0.25% commission element only in the corresponding search dated 10.10.2009 carried out in case of M/s Badalia Group; is quoted in support.

We find no merit in assessee’s foregoing argument since it has been raised for the first time before the tribunal without placing on record the corresponding supportive evidence. The fact also remains that the assessee has not carried out any claimed business. Nor there is any evidence that she has owned any corresponding fixed assets etc. Learned departmental representative fails to rebut that the Assessing Officer has not carried out his factual verification of the alleged accommodation entry beneficiaries. We therefore deem it appropriate to restore the instant issue back to the Assessing Officer with a direction to carry out necessary factual verification to this effect within three effective opportunities and add only the commission element income in those cases where the assessee proves the corresponding entries provided out of the cash deposits of ₹5,11,28,728/-. We further make it Ms Neena Choudhury Vs. ITO Wd-23(2), Hgy. Page 3 clear that any sum over and above such accommodation entry deposits would continue be assessed as unexplained investments u/s 69 of the Act. The assessee is directed to appear before the Assessing Officer alongwith a copy of this order on or before 31.03.2020 for further necessary proceedings.