NEERAJ JAIN,GWALIOR vs. ITO TECH. , GWALIOR

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2009-10 arises against Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [in short, the “CIT(A)”] Gwalior’s order dated 11.01.2019, in case No. CIT(A)Gwl/10343/2017-18, involving proceedings under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’].

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

It emerges during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities has treated the assessee’s cash deposit of Rs.12.29lacs as P a g e | 2 ITA No.69/Agr./2019 Neeraj Jain unexplained u/s 69A of the Act, in the course of assessment framed on 22.12.2017 and upheld in the lower appellate proceedings.

Both the learned representative reiterate the respective stands against the support of the impugned addition. The assessee’s case all along has been that although he is a salaried employee who is also engaged in trading business, and therefore, the impugned addition represents his cash deposits from the said regular business activities only.

The Revenue’s contention on the other hand is that the assessee has not been able to substantiate the foregoing explanation by filing cogent supporting evidence.

Be that as it may, the fact remains that the assessee or his family having accumulated past savings could not be altogether ruled out keeping in view their socio-economic status. We thus deem it proper that a lump sum addition of Rs.6 lacs only would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.6.29 lacs in other words. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.