VIKRAM AHUJA,MUMBAI vs. CIT 48, KALYAN

The captioned appeal by assesse for Assessment Year [AY] 2006- 07 assails the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-48 [CIT(A)], Mumbai dated 25/08/2015 qua addition of Rs.9,99,500/- u/s 68/69 of the Income Tax Act.

Briefly stated, pursuant to search operations u/s 132 on assessee’s father on 11/05/2010, certain documents were found pertaining to assessee also which led to an assessment of assessee for impugned AY u/s 143(3) read with Section 153C vide Assessing Officer [AO] order dated 28/03/2014, wherein the total income of the assesse was assessed at Rs.26,03,240/-after addition of Rs.9,99,500/- u/s 69. An amount of Rs.9,99,500/- was found to have been deposited in cash in one of the Bank account maintained by assessee with HDFC bank account which the assessee could not substantiate and the same led to impugned additions. The assessee contested the same without any success before Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 25/08/2015 where the assesse tried to co-relate the cash deposit from cash withdrawal and cash in hand held by the assessee. However, not convinced, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions against which the assessee is in appeal before us. 3. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for Assessee [AR] drew our attention to the fact that the assessee suffered similar disallowance in AY 2008-09 and the Tribunal, against assessee’s appeal, has restored the issue back Vikram Ahuja Assessment Year 2006-07 to the file of Ld. AO for fresh adjudication and hence, in the light of the same, this matter may also be restored back on similar lines. The Ld. DR did not object to the same. 4. We have heard rival contentions and perused the cited order of Tribunal in dated 25/08/2016 for AY 2008-09 where the Tribunal has restored the matter back with following observations:- “7. After considering the relevant finding given in the impugned orders as well as the submissions made by the parties, we find that before the CIT(A), the assesse has given detailed submission as to how it has been pursuing the Department for making available the various documents and seized material and also the details of deposit in the bank account, which was under the control of his late father. It has also been submitted that, similar addition has been made in the case of Shri Devendra Ahuja, father of the assesse. Thus, in the interest of justice, we feel that the entire matter should be restored back to the file of the AO to see that firstly, no double addition should be made, one in the hands of the father and again in the hands of the assesse on the same bank deposits and secondly, to provide all the necessary details to the assesse as required for the adjudication of the issue involved and thereafter proper opportunity to the assesse should be given to make his submissions. With this direction, the ground raised before us is remanded back to the file of the AO.