SH. RAJIV BANSAL THROUGH L/H PRITI BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ITO, GURGAON

This appeal has been filed by the legal heir of the deceased assesse against the order of the CIT(A)-2 Faridabad dated 16/10/2014 for Assessment Year 2009-10.

However, the assessee has raised as many as five grounds in this appeal but except Ground No. 2, other grounds are argumentative and supported to the main Ground No.2 which reads as follows:-

We have heard of both the arguments from both sides and carefully perused the material placed on record of the Tribunal, inter alia, impugned assessment and First Appellate Order along with paper book filed by the assessee spread over 56 pages.

The Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that the A.O proceeded to make addition on account of cash deposited in the bank account without considering the facts of the case and documents submitted by the appellant before him without any cogent adverse evidence against the assessee. The Ld. Counsel vehemently pointed out that the Ld. CIT(A) has also erred in dismissing the submissions made and the documents submitted by the appellant and passing the order without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Ld. Counsel also submitted that the First Appellate Authority has made a mistake in confirming the order of the A.O without any justification by ignoring the remand report dated 23/7/2014 of the A.O.

Replying to the above, the Ld. Departmental Representative strongly supported the action of the A.O as well as First Appellate Order and submitted that the submissions of the assessee are not supported by books of accounts any relevant bills/vouchers. Therefore, the A.O had no alternate but to make addition which was correctly confirmed by the ld.CIT(A).

Placing rejoinder of the above submissions the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that since the assessee Shri Rajiv Bansal has expired and the wife deceased assessee was not able to submit books of accounts of the assessee but from the cash flow chart submitted by the assessee before the authorities below placed at Pages 30 to 33 of the assessee’s paper book clearly show that the source of impugned amount was properly explained by the assessee as there was corresponding deposit/withdrawal entry in the bank account with respect to the withdrawal/deposit entry to the saving account of the assessee and cash flow statement also confirm the same facts.

The Ld. AR submitted that merely because due to the death of the assessee his wife could not submit books of accounts and other relevant documents the addition on the basis of cash deposits cannot be made and confirm. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee also drew our attention towards Para 2 of the remand report dated 23/7/2014 (paper book Page 40-41)and submitted that merely because wife of the deceased assessee could not explain the logic of making cash withdrawals from one bank and making cash deposits to the another cannot be taken as on basis for making addition, specially when the withdrawals and deposits are being confirmed and explained with the withdrawals made by the assessee from one account and the same amount was deposited to the another bank account of the assessee.

On careful consideration of our rival submissions from para 2 of the remand report dated 23/7/2014 we observe that the A.O submitted the following remand report to the Ld.CIT(A) read as under:-

In view of our remand report, we observe that the A.O has not controverting and disputed the factum of withdrawal from one account and deposit of the same amount to another bank account of the assessee which clearly explains the source of cash deposit made by the assessee, which was picked up by the A.O for making addition. It is a peculiar fact of present case that the assessee has expired and his wife is pressing dying the litigation before the taxation authorities on behalf of her deceased husband. Despite the fact that the authorities below could not dispute the explanation submitted on behalf of the assessee that the assessee withdrew amount from one bank account and the same amount was deposited of the another account. The A.O alleged that the assessee could not submit books of accounts and relevant bills/vouchers. It is very strange that in a case of deceased assessee the A.O has expecting her wife to submit books of account which is not practically possible.

In view of the aforegoing discussion we arrive to a logical conclusion that the addition made by the A.O was not correct and justified and the Ld.CIT(A) was not correct in upholding the same.

In the result, the appeal is allowed.