ALOK KUMAR B AGARWAL,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 24(1)(3), MUMBAI

During hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee, Shri Mandar Vaidya, claimed that confirmation has been filed by the assessee from the respective parties which was not considered, therefore, the addition has to be deleted. On the other hand, Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai, Ld. DR, strongly defended the addition sustained by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) on the ground that the assessee could not discharge the burden cast upon him.

2.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Before adverting further, we note that the only grievance of the assessee is that confirmations were duly filed from the concerned parties, which were ignored. It is noted that the assessee deposited cash amounting to Rs.85,47,150/- in three bank accounts during the year under consideration. The assessee, as per the impugned order, explained the source of cash deposit to the extent of Rs.64,29,060/- and for the remaining amount of Rs.21,18,090/- could not be explained. However, before us a strong plea was raised by the assessee that confirmation of the remaining amount was also filed.