GAURAV NAGPAL,GURGAON vs. ITO, DELHI

Cases called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

Mr. Amit Shukla; learned departmental representative appearing for the Revenue, vehemently argues during the course of hearing that both the lower authorities herein have rightly treated the assessee’s cash deposits of Rs.5,59,000/-

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and the Revenue’s respective stands and find no reason to accept the same in entirety. Learned departmental representative could hardly dispute that this assessee had declared income from salary etc.; and, therefore, possibility of his self and family’s past accumulated savings as well as cash in hand in such an instance could not be altogether denied. The fact however remains that the assessee has failed to plead and prove source of the impugned cash to the entire satisfaction of both the learned lower authorities. Be that as it may, it is thus deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lump sum addition of Rs.2,00,000/- each herein; would cover all the assessee’s deficiencies and shortfalls to prove source of the impugned cash deposits. Ordered accordingly. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. It is made clear that the tribunal’s foregoing estimation of the assessee’s past savings etc. shall not be treated as a precedent.