BRAJESH NARNOLIA HUF,DHANBAD vs. I.T.O., WARD-1(2), ASANSOL, ASANSOL

Brief facts of the case of the assessee is that the assessee engaged in the business of trading and hosiery fabrics and job work of making agreement under the partnership Assessment Year: 2017-18 Manoj Kumar Shaw firm M/s Shiv Enterprise. The assessee filed his return of income for AY 2017-18 declaring total income at Rs. 12,29,290/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny as there was any issue of cash deposit during demonetization period. Notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued, the assessee uploaded some details. The AO after careful scrutiny of the bank account held that there was unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act amounting to Rs. 41,00,000/- and added the same in the total income of the assessee.

The said order has been challenged by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed on the ground that the assessee did not submit any details of customers to whom he made the sales rather assessee reiterated same stand taken before the AO.

The Ld. Counsel appeared on behalf of the assessee instead of arguing on the merit of the case has submitted that the assessee has been given an opportunity to place the documents before the AO to substantiate his claim regarding the source of income during the demonetization period. The Ld. Counsel submits that due to some unavoidable reasons, the assessee could not be filed the balance sheet, bank statement and sale bills before the AO and now the assessee wants to submit the same before the AO. He has filed documents before us and also filed an Affidavit.

The Ld. D.R supports the impugned order.

We have perused the order of AO and find that the order has been passed by holding that the assessee is unable to prove that any normal business or otherwise he was possessed of so much cash, the assessee failed to prove this fact that cash deposit during demonetization period are normal business receipt. Before the Ld. CIT(A) also, the assessee only reiterated his previous version. Hence, his case has been dismissed by observing that the assessee did not submit any details of the customers to whom he made the sales, the buyers from whom he bought the raw materials nor the assessee Assessment Year: 2017-18 Manoj Kumar Shaw submitted the same made by him in financial year subsequent to FY 2016-17 though as per the Ld. CIT(A) onus of proving the source of source of money lies upon the assessee. Before us, the assessee has filed following documents as follows: