VISHNU NOPANY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-51(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The only issue in this appeal of assessee is to be decided as to whether the CIT-A justified in confirming the addition of Rs.20,31,300/- being cash deposits in the bank by passing an ex parte order in the facts and circumstances of the case.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee being an individual filed his return of income for the A.Y under IT A No. 1562/Kol/16 Vishnu Nopany 1 consideration on 30-01-2010 declaring a total income of Rs.3,22,840/-. Under scrutiny, statutory notices u/s. 143(2)/142(1) of the Act were issued to assessee. In response to which, the assessee along with supporting documents of the return as filed appeared before the AO. On AIR information the AO found that the assessee deposited cash to the tune of Rs.30,44,716/- to ICICI Bank, Kolkata. A notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act was issue to the Branch Manager, ICICI Bank, Kolkata for obtaining bank statement. On perusal of the bank statement, the AO found that the assessee deposited cash of Rs.30,44,716/-during the period from 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2009 in A/c No. 00601032552. The assessee was show caused by the AO that why the deposit amount of Rs.20,31,300/- found from the cash flow statement should not be added/disallowed to the total income of assessee being unexplained cash deposits. The assessee failed to justify the source of such bank deposits. Accordingly, the AO on perusal of cash flow statement filed by the assessee noticed that there was excess deposit by the assessee and, accordingly added/disallowed the amount of Rs.20,31,300/- to the total income of assessee.

The assessee challenged the same before the CIT-A. Before the CIT-A there was no proper representation by the assessee. He did not comply with the notices issued by the CIT- A in the appellate proceedings. Accordingly, the CIT-A by an ex parte order confirmed the impugned addition as made by the AO.

Before us the ld.AR submits that the assessee appeared before the CIT in response to notices issued by the CIT-A and filed the copies of IT return, audit report , sale invoices and cash flow statement etc. But, however, the ld.AR of the assessee could not explain the contentions/grounds as raised before the CIT-A. Thus, he submits before us to remand the issue to the file of the AO for his fresh consideration of the documents of assessee filed before us.

The ld.DR submits that the AO has given many opportunities to the assessee to produce all the relevant details in respect of such deposits as found by the AO in the assessment stage. But, the assessee did not file any evidence before the AO to substantiate his claim properly. The assessee also did not comply with the notices issued by the CIT-A properly and remained absent most of the times before him. He also relied on the orders of the authorities below.

Heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the CIT-A issued notices fixing the date of hearing on 05-06-2012, 03-07-2012, 17-04-2013, 13-05- 2013, 27-06-2013 & 10-07-2013, but finally the assessee appeared before the CIT-A on 24-07-2013 and filed certain documents i.e IT return, audit report, sale invoices and a cash flow statement, all unsigned and without a covering letter. The assessee was also directed by the CIT-A to file details of bank account, bank statement and written submissions. On the last day of hearing on 18-11-2013, there was again non compliance by the assessee. It is also noticed that the AO sought explanation from the assessee regarding the deposits as found IT A No. 1562/Kol/16 Vishnu Nopany 3 by him at the assessment stage to which the assessee explained that the cash was received from his many buyers as sale proceeds and advance payment against order. The assessee also submitted that cash was deposited to make payments to his various Creditors for procurement of computers and its spare parts. Before the AO the assessee also filed cash flow statement in support of his contentions. We also find that before the CIT-A in most of times the assessee himself /ld.AR was absent. We also noticed that before the AO/CIT-A the assessee has failed to explain properly by filing requisite evidences/documents. In the circumstances and taking into consideration the submissions of the ld.AR of the assessee before us and in the interest of justice, we deem it fit and proper to remand the issue to the file of the AO for fresh consideration and verification of the same and to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law after giving the assessee adequate opportunity of hearing. The assessee shall be at liberty to file requisite evidences to substantiate its claim properly. Therefore, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 29/03/2017 Sd/- Sd/- Dr. Arjun Lal Saini S.S. Viswanethra Ravi Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated 29-03-2017