SH. ARUN KUMAR BANSAL,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of addition made u/s 69A of Rs.20,97,900/- on account of alleged unexplained and un-proof cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee.

“In the entirety of facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the facts involved in the subject matter have not been streamlined in a proper manner and the adverse inferences have been summarily drawn. If the assessee is owner of above pieces of land holding GPA, it gives a fair assumption that the land could be sold. Similarly, if there is no subsequent deposit in assessee's bank account which may give indication that the sale price have been fetched by the assessee, then the issues are to be decided on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. In that eventuality such preponderance has to be reasonably worked out. Besides, copy of AIR information needs to be given to the assessee and the summons having not come back unserved or marked as no such person, implies that persons are available. In this eventuality relying on Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in Orissa Corporation (supra), the AO has to bring the summons proceedings to a logical conclusion. Merely because summoned person did not respond, cannot be held against assessee. In these facts and circumstances, ends of justice will meet if the issue in question is set aside, restored back to the file of assessing officer to decide the same afresh, in the light of our observations, in accordance with law, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard. We order accordingly.”