INDRASIS ARCHARYA,KOLKATA vs. ITO WARD 59(3), KOLKATA

At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 123 days on the part of the assessee in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of the said delay and keeping in view the reasons given therein, we satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for the delay of 123 days on the part of the assessee in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. The learned DR has also not raised any objection in this regard. The said delay is accordingly condoned and this appeal of the assessee is being disposed of on merit.

During the course of appellate proceedings before the Tribunal, the assessee has filed the revised grounds and although there are as many as four grounds raised by the assessee, the solitary common issue involved therein relates to the addition of Rs. 2,10,011/- made by the A.O. on account of various credits appearing in the bank accounts of the assessee by treating the same as unexplained, which is sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) to the extent of Rs. 1,84,102/-.

The assessee in the present case is an individual who derives income from salary and other sources. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed by the A.O. that there were certain credits appearing in the bank accounts of the assessee for which no explanation could be offered by the assessee despite sufficient opportunity given in this regard. He, therefore, treated the said cash credits aggregating to Rs. 2,10,011/- as unexplained and added the said amount to the total income of the assessee. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the said addition to the extent of Rs. 1,84,102/- as the assessee could not offer any explanation to his satisfaction as regards the relevant credit entries appearing in his bank account. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal.

I have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. It is observed that the relevant credits appearing in the bank account of the assessee were treated by the A.O. as unexplained as no explanation whatsoever was offered by the assessee in respect of the same despite sufficient

Assessment Year: 2006-07 Indrasis Acharya opportunity given by the A.O. in this regard. During the course of appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) examined all the relevant credits appearing in the bank account of the assessee and found that the nature of some of the entries was such that the same could not be treated as income of the assessee. As regards the remaining credit entries of Rs. 1,84,102/-, he found that no satisfactory explanation was offered by the assessee. He, therefore, treated such entries as unexplained and sustained the addition of Rs. 2,10,011/- made by the A.O. on this issue to the extent of Rs. 1,84,102/-. At the time of hearing before the Tribunal, the learned counsel for the assessee has not been able to offer any explanation as regards the failure of the assessee to explain the relevant cash credit entries before the authorities below. He has urged that the matter may be sent back to the Assessing Officer for giving one more opportunity to the assessee to explain the relevant cash credits. I am unable to accept this contention of the learned counsel for the assessee. As rightly pointed out by the learned DR, sufficient opportunity was given by the A.O. as well as by the Ld. CIT(A) to the assessee to explain the relevant cash credits and since the assessee has failed to avail the said opportunity without there being any cogent or convincing reason, I am of the view that it is not a fit case where the assessee deserves one more opportunity to explain the relevant cash credits. I, therefore, uphold the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition made by the A.O. by treating the relevant credits in the bank account of the assessee as unexplained and dismiss this appeal of the assessee.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 18th July, 2018.