MURALIDHAR MYSORE SUNDARESH ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD-4(3)(1), BENGALURU

In not appreciating that the source of cash deposits are previous cash withdrawals, the Learned AO/CIT(A) have erred in law and on facts in proceeding ahead with addition under section 69A of the Act;

Given that the documents are already on records, the Learned AO should have reappreciated to consider both cash deposits and cash withdrawals instead of focusing only one leg of the transaction;

The Learned AO/CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not treating cash deposits as receipts from business and thereby bringing only the net income to tax; 11. Without prejudice to the above, the Learned AO/CIT(A) ought to have given the benefit of peak credit; 12. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in restricting the benefit of peak credit. 13. The learned AO/CIT(A) ought to have given the benefit of Chapter VI- A of the Act, 14. The Learned AO/CIT(A) has erred in invoking provisions of section 115BBE of the Act; 15. The order is unreasonably high pitched and therefore liable to be quashed in its entirety; 16. The Learned AO/CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts that TDS credit has not been given despite available in Form 26AS; 17. The Learned AO has erred in law and on facts in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271AAC(1)of the Act; 18. The Learned AO has erred in law and on facts in initiating penalty proceedings under section 27 IF of the Act for not filing the return of income;

The Learned Officer has erred in raising demand vide issue of notice under section 156 of the Act;

The Learned Officer has erred in law levying interest under section 234A/B/C of the Act;”

Facts of the case are that in the assessment year under consideration, the ld. AO while framing assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) noticed that assessee has deposited Rs.64,72,300/- in HDFC Bank Ltd. and Rs.47,22,000/- into ICICI Bank Ltd. during the demonetization period. The assessee has not furnished source of these deposits. Hence, ld. AO made an addition of Rs.1,11,94,300/- treating it as unexplained deposit u/s 69A of the Act. Against this assessee went in appeal before ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. The assessee filed submissions which are first time filed before NFAC and prayed for admission of the same. Consequent to this, NFAC forwarded the new submissions filed before him to ld. AO calling for the remand report. However, the ld. AO failed to submit the remand report. Hence, having no option, NFAC considered the evidence available on record and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Against this assessee once again in appeal before us.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The ld. A.R. pleaded that there was no remand report filed by the ld. AO before NFAC. The NFAC has taken adverse view of the facts of the case and decided the issue against the assessee. He prayed that issue may be remitted to the file of ld. AO to consider the assessee’s submissions filed before NFAC in its entirety and decide the issue afresh.