SH. U.K. MENON,GURGAON vs. ITO, GURGAON

O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M.

shows only grievance of assessee is that Ld. AO has made an addition of ₹ 31,75,000/– to income of the assessee on account of deposit of cash of ₹ 3,175,000 into savings bank accounts of assessee with ICICI bank and bank of Rajasthan Ltd. On appeal before earned CIT(A) this addition was confirmed. Therefore, assessee is in appeal before us.

3. Assessee is an individual who filed his return of income on 15/7/2009 declaring income of ₹ 320006/–. Selection of the case for scrutiny was made under CASS and therefore statutory notices were issued. Assessee is deriving income from salary. Ld. AO noted that assessee has deposited ₹ 3,000,000/- Page | 1 Shri U.K. Menon Vs. ITO (Assessment Year: 2009-10) in cash in his bank account with Bank of Rajasthan and ₹ 175,000 into his bank account with ICICI bank. During assessment proceedings, assessee was asked several times to show and explain source; however, assessee did not comply with notices. Therefore, final notice was also issued to assessee titled as „show cause notice‟. Before Ld AO, assessee submitted an affidavit dated 8/11/2011 submitting that cash was deposited as buyer forced him to deposit same and relevant documents without providing copies of the documents. Ld. AO in absence of any explanation forthcoming made above addition of ₹ 3,175,000 of unexplained cash deposited in the savings bank account of assessee.

4. Before the Ld. CIT(A), appellant assessee submitted additional evidences along with petition under Rule 46A requesting for admission of same vide letter dated 08.03.2013. Assessee submitted confirmation from the resident welfare Association that property was owned by wife of assessee and sold to Mr. Jatinder Pathak. Ld. CIT(A) asked remand report from the Ld. AO, which was submitted on 24.06.2013. Ld. AO objected that assessee was given a sufficient opportunity to produce the documents. Ld. CIT (A) admitted additional evidences. On merits, it was submitted that cash was deposited out of sale proceeds of house No. 173, Sainik Nagar, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. However, assessee could not submit any evidence of sale of house property. Therefore, ld. AO has treated it as unexplained cash deposited in bank account as income. Assessee further submitted that assessee sold the house property, which was in name of wife of assessee. Assessee also submitted that document confirming ownership of said property in the name of a wife were submitted before ld. AO and assessee also explained that why sale documents could not be submitted. It was further stated that assessee has submitted an affidavit stating reasons and explaining circumstances for not able to provide sale documents. Assessee further stated that wife of assessee has furnished her return of income for same A.Y. where the capital loss of ₹ 95224/– was disclosed. During remand proceedings, Ld. AO made detailed enquiry with buyer who did not respond, Shri U.K. Menon Vs. ITO (Assessment Year: 2009-10) with resident welfare Association from where no positive information with respect to the source of cash deposit was received. Therefore, Ld. AO stated that assessee could not state source of cash deposit. Further, no documentary evidence such as agreement to sale for which cash received is deposited in bank account was produced. Assessee made some allegations against buyer. However, no complaint was lodged with respective authorities. In remand proceedings, also buyer did not furnish copy of sale deed and details of payment received by assessee. Information obtained from RWA also did not prove case of assessee. Therefore, ld CIT- A confirmed addition of ₹ 3,175,000. Therefore, assessee filed this appeal before us.