SATISH U CHOKKADI,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In this appeal filed by the assessee which is directed against an order dt.27.11.2015 of CIT (A)-IV, Bengaluru, it has altogether raised nine grounds which are reproduced hereunder :

Facts apropos are that assessee a contractor had filed his return for the impugned assessment year declaring income of Rs.2,11,040/-. AO was in possession of information that assessee had cash deposits in the following banks :

Aggrieved assessee moved in appeal before the CIT (A). CIT (A) sought a remand report from the AO. In the said remand report, AO dispelled assessee’s contention that amounts were received from Dr. Shivaram. According to him this was only a story floated by the assessee ITA.30/Bang/2016 Page - 4 and the amounts were not matching with the deposits made in the bank account. Further according to him contention of the assessee that part of the amount was out of advance received for sale of a site no.2860 at Sy No.88, Nandanavana Layout, Bengaluru, also could not be accepted since there was a long delay between the date of alleged receipt of advance and deposits in the books of account. When this was put to the assessee explanation of assessee was that the books of account were maintained and the credits in the bank account were recorded in such books of account. CIT (A) after considering the arguments of the assessee and remand report of the AO was of the opinion that assessee could not prove receipt of money from Shri. Shyamaprasad through Dr. Shivaram nor could it show any source for the other cash deposits. He upheld the order of AO.

Now before us Ld. AR submitted that assessee had given detailed explanation before the AO for each of the credits in the bank accounts but these were not considered by the AO. For this reliance was placed on was a letter dt.10.10.2011 filed by assessee before the AO. As per the Ld. AR assessee had given clear explanation regarding deposits made in the books of account in para 8 of the said letter. Further according to him assessee had on 28.11.2011 filed another letter before the AO (paper book, page.44)

Per contra, Ld. DR supported the orders of lower authorities.

I have perused the orders and heard the rival contentions. It is not disputed that the assessee is a contractor. Assessee has also not disputed that there were deposits in the bank account as mentioned in para two above. Concern of the assessee is that explanation filed by letters dt.10.11.11, 28.11.2011, 30.11.2011 and 20.12.2011 were not properly considered by CIT (A). No doubt AO and CIT (A) had considered the argument of the assessee that the amounts deposited were out of money given by Shyamaprasad which explanation formed a part of the letter dt.10.10.2011. However subsequent letters filed by assessee with regard to the deposits were not considered by the lower authorities. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the matter requires a fresh look by ITA.30/Bang/2016 Page - 6 the AO. Assessee shall adduce evidence to show the source of deposits in the bank accounts. Orders of lower authorities are set aside and the question regarding the source of the deposits is remitted back to the file of AO for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.