SHRI KAPIL KUMAR,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, DEHRADUN

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Addl./JCIT(A)- 10, Mumbai’s DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- 25/1069983695(1), dated 28.10.2024, involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

Learned departmental representative Sh. Rane vehemently argues during the course of hearing that both the lower authorities herein have rightly treated the assessee’s cash deposits during demonetization; in his PPF account as unexplained cash credits under section 68 r.w.s. 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act as the latter had failed to prove the source thereof during scrutiny as well as in the lower appellate proceedings.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s pleadings all along and the Revenue’s foregoing vehement submission. We hardly see any reason to sustain the impugned addition. This is for the precise reason that as it is clear from a perusal of the lower appellate discussion in pages 15 to 17 that the assessee had withdrawn an amount of Rs.2.60 lakhs followed by the corresponding deposits of Rs.2.10 lakhs during demonetization. 5. That being the clinching case, we are of the considered view that not only going by above withdrawals, but also as per the assessee’s socio-economic status, it could indeed be held that he