GINO JOB,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ADDITIONAL JOINT DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , KOCHI

It emerges at the outset that the Assessing Officer added assessee’s cash deposit of Rs.6,69,39,155 and Rs.6,41,12,094; assessment year-wise, respectively, as his unexplained investment. The assessee preferred his -09/Coch/2024. Sri.Gino Job. separate appeals wherein the CIT(A)’s identical detailed discussion in pages 3-4 has accepted his contentions in principle that the said deposits infact stood explained since subsequently credited to his employer [BSNL’s] account. What is the point of dispute herein is in view of these facts and circumstances the ld.CIT(A) has deleted the foregoing identical addition on one hand but assessed 5% each thereof as assessee’s service charges in the interest of the revenue”.

Both the representatives reiterated their stands against and in support of the impugned addition. We are of the considered view that once the CIT(A) has deleted the impugned addition(s) in issue, there is hardly any valid justification for him to assess the same once again at 5% in issue. That being the case, we deem it appropriate to reverse the learned lower authorities impugned addition. Ordered accordingly.