CINNASAMY SARAVANAPRABHU,TIRUPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(3), TIRUPUR

It was submitted by the Ld.AR that the assessee is an individual who is having agricultural income. The assessee had filed his return of income admitting an income of Rs.2,72,700/- and agricultural income of Rs.2,50,000/-. The assessment came to be completed, wherein, the cash deposit to the bank accounts of the assessee was treated as unexplained and the peak credit in the bank account assessed to tax. It was a submission that though the AO has held that the assessee is having income from rearing of goats, this was not true. It was a submission that the assessee was having 60 acres of agricultural land and his main income is from coconuts. It was a submission that the explanation given by the assessee was also not accepted by the AO or the Ld.CIT(A). It was a submission that he had no objection, if the issues are restored to the file of the AO for re-adjudication. It was a prayer that the assessee may alternatively be granted stay of recovery of the disputed taxes as the assessee has substantially good case on appeal.

In reply, the Ld.DR submitted that the issues in this appeal may be restored to the file of the AO for re-adjudication afresh. It was a submission that the assessee has not given proper explanation in regard to the entries in the bank account.

We have considered the rival submissions.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. As the appeal of the assessee has been disposed off by restoring to the file of the AO for re-adjudication, the Stay Petition filed by the assessee in SP No.170/Chny/2018 stands dismissed as infructuous.