GAURAV BAHETI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-29(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The assessee in the present case is an individual who is an employee of M/s. Seacem Paints (I) Pvt. Ltd. He filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 07.01.2013 declaring a total income of Rs. 2,81,015/- comprising of the salary income and income from other sources. As per the AIR information received by the A.O., the assessee had made cash deposits aggregating to Rs. 12,12,000/- in his bank account maintained with Axis Bank, Gourav Baheti Maheshtala Branch during the year under consideration. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was called upon by the A.O. to explain the nature and source of the said cash deposits. The assessee however failed to offer any explanation. The A.O., therefore, proceeded to treat the cash deposits found to be made in the bank account of the assessee as unexplained cash credit under section 68 and made an addition of Rs. 12,12,000/- to the total income of the assessee in the assessment completed under section 143(3) vide an order dated 13.03.2015.

The addition of Rs. 12,12,000/- made by the A.O. under section 68 was challenged by the assessee in the appeal filed before the Ld. CIT(A). During the course of appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A), the source of cash deposits made in his bank account with Axis Bank, Maheshtala Branch was explained by the assessee as under:

1. 1. Opening cash in hand Rs. 1,64,000/- 2. Cash withdrawn from Axis Bank on Rs. 2,55,000/- 21.07.2011 and 23.09.2011 3. Cash withdrawn from Bank of Maharashtra Rs. 1,95,000/- on 26.08.2011 4. Advance received against property from M/s. Rs. 8,00,000/- Tysom Agencies Pvt. Ltd.

The explanation/submission made by the assessee as above was not found acceptable by the Ld. CIT(A) and he proceeded to confirm the addition of Rs. 12,12,000/- made by the A.O. under section 68 for the following reasons given in his impugned order: “I have carefully considered the facts of the case and the submissions of the assessee. First of all appellant has not submitted any agreement between self and M/s. Tysom Agencies Pvt. Ltd. regarding the purchase / sale of property. Appellant has also not explained the reason why this deal was cancelled. Appellant has claimed to have returned Rs. 8,00,000/- in cash on 02.03.2012, but source of this cash is not revealed. Further perusal of the documents submitted by the appellant shows that assessee has claimed to have received cash amounting to Rs. 8,00,000/- on 15.06.2011. But the deposits have been made in the month of August, 2100. Further assessee has made a cash withdrawal of Rs. 2,35,000/- on 21.07.2011, but this amount is deposited in the 1st week of August, 2011 along with the amount of cash in hand which was received in June, 2011 for proposed sale of his property. Further assessee has claimed to have withdrawn of Rs. 1,95,000/- on 26.08.2011 and this has been used to explain cash deposits on various dates in November, 2011. Thus it is apparent that cash deposits have not immediately proceeded with cash withdrawals. There is substantial gap between cash deposits and cash withdrawals. During hearing, appellant could not satisfactorily explain the reasons for such time lags. Further, appellant could not explain why he had to withdraw Rs. 2,35,000/- when he had almost Rs. 5,00,000/- in hand and this amount was deposited after two weeks along with the other cash in hand. Further after depositing the cash, assessee has further withdrawn cash of Rs. 1,95,000/- within three weeks of the deposit of cash. Thus there are several inconsistencies in the explanation of the appellant. Documents submitted during appeal proceedings are self serving documents and these have been manipulated to support assessee’s contentions. Hence, these are not reliable. Despite assessee’s efforts, the source of cash deposits remain unexplained. Assessee’s explanations regarding source of cash is not acceptable for the reasons mentioned above. Hence, addition of Rs. 12,12,000/- is confirmed”.

The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that proper and sufficient opportunity was not given by the A.O. to the assessee to explain the source of cash deposits found to be made in his bank account with Axis Bank, Maheshtala Branch. He contended that such opportunity was received by the assessee only during the course of appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) and availing the same, source of cash deposits made in his bank account in Axis Bank was explained by the assessee. He contended that even the documentary evidence to support and substantiate the said explanation was also filed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A). He contended that the Ld. CIT(A) however did not accept the explanation of the assessee for the reasons given his impugned order which are neither cogent nor convincing. In this regard, he filed a tabular chart giving explanation of the assessee in respect of each and every objection raised by the Ld. CIT(A) as under: OBSERVATION OF THE CIT(A)-18 EXPLANATION 1 (i) Agreement between self and Copies of correspondences between the M/s. Tysom Agencies Pvt. Ltd. appellant and Tysom Agencies Pvt. Ltd. regarding the purchase/sale of along with the Confirmation of Account property was not submitted by the reflecting the transactions were duly appellant. furnished to the CIT(A) for his necessary verification. (Ref: Pages 3 to 6 of Paper Book) (ii) The appellant did not explain The advance given by Tysom Agencies the reason why the deal with Pvt. Ltd. was subject to conditions Tysom Agencies Pvt. Ltd. was specified in its letter of advance, a copy cancelled. of which was duly furnished to the CIT(A) for his necessary verification.

Keeping in view the explanation offered by the assessee to meet each and every objection raised by the Ld. CIT(A), the learned counsel for the assessee contended that the addition made by the A.O. under section 68 and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is liable to be deleted.

The learned DR, on the other hand, referred to the relevant order sheet entries as appearing on page no 23 of the assessee’s Paper Book to point out that sufficient opportunity was afforded by the A.O. to the assessee to explain the nature and source of cash deposits found to be made in his bank account with Axis Bank. He submitted that the assessee however did not avail the said opportunity and offered his explanation regarding cash deposits made in his bank account only during the course of appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A). He contended that the said explanation offered by the assessee however was not supported by Gourav Baheti any independent evidence and considering the discrepancies and infirmities in the same as specifically pointed out by the Ld. CIT(A), the same was liable to be rejected. He contended that the said explanation was nothing but afterthought and the Ld. CIT(A) was fully justified in rejecting the same.

I have considered the rival submission and also perused the relevant material available on record. It is observed that even though no explanation was offered by the assessee regarding the nature and source of cash deposits found to be made in his bank account with Axis Bank, such explanation was offered by him during the course of appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A). Documentary evidence to support and substantiate the said explanation was also filed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A). For instance, the claim of the assessee of having received an advance of Rs. 8,00,000/- against property from M/s. Tysom Agencies Pvt. Ltd. was duly supported by a letter issued by the said party confirming the payment of advance to the assessee. Similarly the claim of the assessee of having withdrawn cash from his other bank accounts maintained with Bank of Maharashtra and Axis Bank was also supported by the copies of relevant bank statements filed by the assessee. It is observed that the Ld. CIT(A) however did not accept this explanation of the assessee which was duly supported by the relevant documentary evidence on the basis of certain infirmities and discrepancies pointed out by him. In this regard, the learned counsel for the assessee has prepared and furnished a tabular chart before the Tribunal offering the explanation of the assessee in respect of each and every objection raised by the Ld. CIT(A) and a Gourav Baheti perusal of the same shows that the explanation offered by the assessee is sufficient to meet all the objections raised by the Ld. CIT(A) while rejecting the explanation offered by the assessee as regards the source of cash deposits made in his bank account with Axis Bank. Keeping in view the entire material placed on record before the Tribunal, I find that the source of cash deposits found to be made in his bank account with Axis Bank aggregating to Rs. 12,12,000/- is property explained by the assessee on evidence and there is no justification on the part of the authorities below to treat the same as unexplained cash credit under section 68. I, therefore, delete the addition made by the A.O. under section 68 and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) and allow this appeal of the assessee.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 5th January, 2018. Sd/- (P.M. Jagtap) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 05/01/2018 Biswajit, Sr. PS Copy of order forwarded to: