MR. FAROOQ HAJIGAFFAR MOTORWALA,MUMBAI vs. ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the instant case, the Assessing Officer (AO) vide assessment order dated 26.03.2015 under section 144 read with section 147 of the Act made the addition of Rs.1,23,45,000/- under section 68 of the Act on account of unexplained cash deposit and added the same in the income of the assessee. The assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said addition before the Ld. Commissioner. The assessee by filing additional evidence before the Ld. Commissioner contended that non compliance to various notices issued by the AO was on account of non cooperation from the chartered accountant and further the bank also did not give the statement in time as the same pertains to old period. The Ld. Commissioner though considered the claim of the assessee, however, by observing “that the assessee has not furnished any document in support of the fact that he indeed made a request to the bank for supply of relevant bank statement. Both these arguments submitted by the assessee are not supported with any documentary evidence and is not convincing at all. If the chartered accountant was not cooperating, nothing prevented the assessee to attend the hearing before the AO and to explain his position requesting the AO to call for bank statement directly from the bank”, ultimately held that in his considered opinion, the Assessee’s case for admission of additional evidence is not covered under rule 46A(1)(b)(c) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (in short “the Rules”) and consequently dismissed the appeal of the assessee.