NITIN GUDDU GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-60, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

O R D E R

PER S.S.Godara, Judicial Member:

number 2 &

3. In this case assessee was found to have deposited cash in his bank account. Deposits were made over a number of moths and total deposits in his two bank accounts were Rs.15,34,500/-. To explain the deposits assessee has claimed that he received a gift of Rs.1,50,000/- from his mother in cash and he had in his hand an opening balance of Rs.6,46,672/-. These cash were Nitin Guddu Gupta Vs. ACIT, Cir-60, Kol. Page 2 deposited, withdrawn and again deposited resulting into multiple deposits aggregating to Rs.15,34,5000/-. I have carefully considered the facts of the case and the submission of the assessee. Contentions of the assessee do not conform to rational behavior. If assessee had opening cash balances then it is not understood as to why such huge cash balances were kept when assessee is a salaried employee. Secondly, what was the need to deposit cash in small amounts and then withdraw it when assessee already was left with remaining cash out of the opening cash balances. This pattern is repeated throughout the year as if it was the hobby of the assessee to deposit and withdraw cash in his bank account. Assessee has failed to logically explain his actions relating to the deposit and withdrawal of the cash. Assessee’s reliance on the balance sheet as on 31.3.2009 is also of no use as assessee is a salaried employee and balance sheet was not filed with his return. Hence the balance sheet prepared by the assessee to explain cash deposits in his bank accounts cannot be relied upon. Now coming to the gift from his mother, it is noticed that AO ad called upon. Now coming to the gift from his mother, it is noticed that AO had called her to record her statement regarding the gift given. However, she fumbled at the basic questions and before AO could record her statement regarding the gift given, assessee claimed that she was not well and they had a doctor’s appointment and left the office with the promise of coming some other time. However, she never appeared before the AO to complete her statement. Under the circumstances the confirmation filed by her cannot be relied upon. Assessee has cited various case laws regarding the identity and creditworthiness of the person. However these things are not the issue here. What AO wanted to confirm in person whether she had actually given the gift or it was just an arrangement to help her son. While recording the statement AO would have verified this using his investigative skills. As the recording of the statement was not completed, assessee’s version regarding the receipt of Rs.1,50,000/- in cash from his mother cannot be accepted. Under the circumstances the addition of Rs.15,34,500/- is confirmed.”

3. We notice that the assessee has raised an additional ground as well pleading therein that CIT(A)’a has erred in law as well as on facts in invoking 68 of the Act by merely relying upon the relevant bank pass-books which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. This additional ground is not pressed during the course of hearing before us. The assessee’s case through his learned counsel before us that both the lower authorities have added the impugned cash deposits without giving any credit of the corresponding repeated withdrawals forming alleged source of re-deposits. Learned Departmental Representative reiterates the CIT(A)’s stands that this assessee is a salaried employee and therefore the instant plea of withdrawals followed by re- deposits cannot be accepted. We find no reason to concern with the same. It