NAVIN D. GOEL,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO 15(2)(4), MUMBAI

During hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee, Shri Mandar Vaidya, contended that the impugned amount was deposited in the bank account out of earlier cash withdrawn from the bank and cash in hand available with the assessee. It was contended that reasonable opportunity was not provided to the assessee. It was also pleaded that part of the cash was withdrawn four days prior to the cash deposited in the bank. The ld. counsel for the assessee invited our attention to page-16 of the paper book. On the other hand, the ld. DR, Shri S. K. Mishra, though defended the addition but also contended that if the version of the assessee is accepted, it has to be examined at the level of the Ld. Assessing Officer.

2.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual, engaged in the business of trading in iron and steel, declared income of Rs.4,97,806/- in his return of income. The Ld. Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.21 lakhs (cash found to be deposited in the bank account). The stand of the assessee is that it is out of existing cash withdrew from the bank and in the cash in hand available with the assessee. The ld. counsel invited our attention to the letter dated 22/12/2011 and page-16 of the paper book. Considering the totality of facts, and principle of natural justice, we deem it appropriate to remand this appeal to the file of the Ld. Assessing Officer to examine the claim of the assessee and decide afresh. The assessee is directed to furnish the necessary evidence with respect to source of cash.