DHARAMPAL TYAGI,MEERUT CANTT vs. ITO, WARD- 1(2), MEERUT

Briefly the facts of the case are that no PAN and ITR has been filed in this case. The case was selected for scrutiny on the basis of AIR Information regarding cash deposits in S.B. account by assessee without quoting PAN numbers in the A.Y. under appeal. The A.O. issued notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) as well as notice u/s 142(1) of the Act. The assessee filed written submissions but no ITR has been filed u/s 148 of the Act. The A.O. noted that as per AIR information, it is confirmed from the copy of bank statement that ITA 140/Del/2018 A.Y.:2009-10 Dharampal Tyagi vs. ITO, Meerut assessee had deposited cash of Rs.13,15,000/- on 21.07.2008 in his bank account maintained with OBC, Kaland, Meerut. In support of source of cash deposits only general reply was filed stating therein that cash was deposited in the bank account out of collection made from number of sources such as advance from OBC against Green Card, receipts from supply of sugar cane to the mills, and some money was collected out of sale proceeds of milk, sale proceeds of wheat, rice and potato etc. The A.O. noted that reply of the assessee is general and source of cash deposits is not explained with reference to any evidence. Therefore, the A.O. made an addition of Rs.13,15,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposits in the bank account.

The assessee challenged the addition before the Ld.CIT(A) and filed submissions and evidences which were remanded to A.O. on the issue of admission of additional evidences. A.O. filed Remand Report on 15.11.2017 on the issue of admissibility of additional evidences and noted that “the assessee had changed his stand and despite giving sufficient opportunity, no documentary evidence is filed, therefore, application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A may be rejected”.

The Ld.CIT(A) noted that despite giving sufficient opportunities assessee did not produce sufficient evidences before the ITA 140/Del/2018 A.Y.:2009-10 Dharampal Tyagi vs. ITO, Meerut A.O. Therefore, application under Rule 46A for admission of additional evidence was rejected. The Ld.CIT(A) on merit noted that assessee has now come up with new set of evidences but failed to establish sufficient cause or reasons for admission of the same, therefore, addition on merit was also confirmed.

The assessee has challenged the order of ld.CIT(A) for refusing admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of I.T.Rules.

After considering rival submissions, I am of the view that the matter requires reconsideration at the level of Ld.CIT(A). The assessee has filed copy of Remand Report on record. The assessee initially submitted reply before the A.O. explaining the source of bank deposits out of advance received from OBC Green Card, receipt from supply of sugar cane to mills, sale of milk, wheat, rice and potato. However, at the appellate stage the assessee explained that out of total deposits of Rs.13,15,000/- deposited in cash in the bank account, an amount of Rs.12,15,000/- were deposited out of advance money received by assessee against an agreement to sell his agricultural land and remaining cash of Rs.65,000/- was deposited by assessee out of agricultural savings. Copy of agreement with Shri Bal Kishan and affidavit of assessee were filed in support of the same. The A.O. verified these documents and noted that the claim of assessee is verifiable but assessee has changed his stand during the appellate

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.