ETI RANI DEY,HOOGHLY vs. ACIT, CIR-1, BWN, BURDWAN

- This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2009-10 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Burdwan’s order dated 25.02.2015 passed in case No.296/CIT(A)/ASL/ACIT/Cir-1/BWN/1112, involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. We thus proceed ex parte against the assessee in the instant case.

The assessee’s sole substantive ground raised

There is no dispute about the basic fact that the assessee had indeed made the impugned cash deposit in her bank account. The sole question before us as to whether she has satisfied the three folded use of identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the said seventeen parties as source thereof or not. This assessee has admittedly derived income from a partnership firm. She explained before the Assessing Officer that the impugned sum had come from Shri Uttam Kumar Das, Tanusi Dey, Sk. Hasnat Ali, Manab Adhikary, Asis Ghosh, Jyotiprakash Dey, Debasis Kundu, Manoranjan Kundu, Manoranjan Kundu, Asit Choudhury, Anonto Guin, Sk. Mozaffar, Joydeb Soo, Ohab Mondal, Susanta Karmakar, Ramesh Chandra Das, Prosanna Some, Laxmi Narayan Mondal, Balash Banerjee & Ansar Ali Sekh; involving various amounts. We find from assessment order dated 27.12.2011 that the assessee could produce almost all of said parties before the Assessing Officer for necessary factual verification. The said creditors confirmed the assessee’s version regarding the sum involved in their respective cases. The Assessing Officer declined the said explanation on the ground that almost all of them had been engaged in potato brokerage commission business. They did not have means to lend so much money on credit to the assessee. He therefore treated assessee’s cash deposits as unexplained liable to be assessed u/s. 68 of the Act. The CIT(A) has confirmed the impugned in his lower appellate proceedings.