MR. BALA VITHAL KALE,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 2(3), MUMBAI

Date of Hearing –02.05.2017 Date of Order - 30.05.2017

O R D E R PER: SHAMIM YAHYA This appeal by the assessee is directed against order of Ld. CIT-A dated 29.01.2013 and pertains to assessment year 2009-10.

2. The grounds of appeal read as under:

Bala Vithal Kale ITA no.2640/Mum./2013 2. The learned Asst.Comrn ofIncome tax /Income tax officer erred in adding cash deposits of Rs. 533075/- in Canara Bank although all supporting were produced as income although all supporting bills vouchers, details etc were produced.

6. The Ld. ACIT/Income Tax Officer erred in adding reliance Antenna rent Rs.1,38,000/- bills, vouchers, details etc were produce.

7. The Appellant prays that the order passed by the Ld. ITO be set aside and the book results of the Appellant be accepted.

3. In the case the A.O made the following additions.

PARTICULARS AMOUNT (Rs.) Total Income as per return of Income 4,63.110 Add: Unexplained cash deposits in Canara Bank 533075 Add: Unexplained cash deposits in KNSB 264500 Add: Unexplained cash deposits in HDFC Bank 81000 Add: Rent income from Pune house 25200 Add: Income from Reliance antenna 138000 10,41.775 Total taxable Income 15,04.885 Rounded 15,04,890

Bala Vithal Kale ITA no.2640/Mum./2013 4. Upon assessee’s appeal Ld. CIT-A passed a non-speaking laconic order as under:- 1. The unnumbered grounds of appeal pertains to:- (i) Addition of cash deposits of:- (a) Rs.5,33,075/- in Canara Bank (b) Rs.2,64,500/- in KNSB (c) Rs,81,000/- in HDFC Bank (ii) rent income of Pune House Rs.25,200/- (iii) Income from Reliance Anteena Rent Rs.1,38,000/-

2. The appellant failed to discharge its onus to establish identity of loan creditors, capacity of loan creditor and genuineness of transactions in the course of assessment proceedings as well as in the appeal proceedings. As the nature and source of cash deposits in the bank accounts were not satisfactorily explained, the AO's action to treat the cash deposit as income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act is found to be valid.

3. The appellant has not disclosed rent receipt from his house at Pune which was discovered by the AO from the bank statement and the AO's action to add rent income of Pune house, is, therefore, found to be correct. 4. The AO discovered from the bank summary submitted by the assessee that the assessee has been receiving rent from reliance on account of antenna installed at his premises and Bala Vithal Kale ITA no.2640/Mum./2013 the income was not offered for taxation, The AO's action to bring the income from reliance antenna rent is valid.

5. Against above order assessee is in appeal before us. We have heard both the counsel and perused the records. At the outset we note that learned CIT-A has passed a laconic and are a non speaking order. He has further mentioned that A.O has made addition and not accepted assessee’s explanation. So Ld. CIT-A has dismissed the appeal. There is no adjudication by Ld. CIT-A himself. Honourable Apex court in the case of Sahara farms 300 ITR 403 has expounded that even admin orders have to be consistent with the rules of natural justice. Accordingly in our considered opinion the assessee deserves a speaking appellate order from the learned CIT- A. Hence we remit the issues raised in this appeal to the file of learned CIT-A. Learned CIT-A is directed to pass a speaking order after giving the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard.