SRI SANJIV KUMAR SINGH,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 36(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

It emerges at the outset that the assessee’s last appeal suffers from 32 days’ delay in filing stated to be attributable circumstances beyond his ITA No.1040-1042/Kol/2017 & 1104/Kol/2017 A.Ys 09-10 to 12-13 Sh. Sanjiv Kr. Singh Vs ITO Wd-36(3), Kol. Page 2 control. Learned departmental representative is very fair in not disputing correctness thereof. We thus condone the impugned delay of thirty two days in filing of instant appeal ITA No.1104/Kol/2017. The same is now taken up for adjudication on merits.

A combined perusal of all these case file(s) suggests that assessee’s sole substantive grievance identically pleaded in these four cases seeks to reverse both the lower authorities’ identical action treating his bank deposits of ₹5,46,22,860/-, ₹17,07,40,951/-, ₹6,38,98,700/- & ₹1,99,61,610/-; assessment year-wise respectively as unexplained cash credits in the course of assessment as affirmed in the lower appellate proceedings.

There is no dispute between the parties about the assessee to have made the impugned bank deposits in the name of his proprietary concerns M/s Hiland Securities, M/s Kanak Vyapaar and M/s Sanjiv Enterprises in their respective bank accounts. The Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) hold the same to be unexplained cash credits for making the impugned addition in assessee’s hands. Learned departmental representative vehemently contends during the course of hearing that the assessee had not put in appearance before the Assessing Officer to explain source of all these cash credits. The very factual position is stated to have been continued before the CIT(A) as well. The assessee’s arguments on the other hand are that he could not be properly served during the curse of scrutiny since the relevant hearing notice(s) had been received by his family members. It is further stated that even on merits, neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) have considered the clinching fact of the corresponding peak credit statement as well as telescoping benefit to be granted in such a case involving multiple credit and debit transactions in bank accounts. Mr. Agarwal has invited our attention to the assessee’s detailed paper book running into 57 pages filed before the CIT(A) to simultaneously consider peak of the amounts deposited to be followed by telescoping benefit in these four assessment years. We find that the assessee’s instant pleadings prima facie correct per se. The fact also remains that this assessee; who is stated to have set up his business in the name of various proprietary concerns to carry out entry operations business had not appeared