BANDANA DEY PODDAR,MALDA vs. ITO,WARD-3(1), MALDA. , MALDA.

The assessee in this appeal has agitated the action of the CIT(A) in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.76,99,000/- u/s 69A of the Act on account of unexplained deposits in the bank during the demonetization period.

At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee runs a petrol pump. That as per the Government circular during the demonetization period, the assessee was entitled to receive demonetized notes (old notes) for the sale of fuel. That the assessee has Assessment Year : 2017-18 Bandana Dey Poddar made sales in cash and the sale receipts were deposited in the bank. However, the lower authorities wrongly and illegally treated the said deposits as unexplained income of the assessee. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to para 4 of the order of the CIT(A), wherein, the submissions of the assessee have been duly recorded, wherein, it has been explained that the assessee runs a petrol pump of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. A detailed statement of account in the books of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. was also furnished evidencing the transaction made during the relevant period. It was also submitted that the accounts of the assessee were duly audited and filed online. A copy of the audit report was also furnished before the CIT(A). It was also duly explained that the entire cash deposits/sales made during the period were duly reflected in the books of account maintained, even the sales have not been disputed by the CIT(A).

We find that the ld. CIT(A) without considering the above submissions of the assessee has simply confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer stating that on critical analysis of the accounts, statements and audit report, it was found that the assessee’s explanation, submission was not satisfactory. However, the ld. CIT(A) has not mentioned as to why accounts furnished by the assessee and the expalantion given by the assessee was not found satisfactory. No reasons have been given by the CIT(A) in the cryptic order passed by him. On the other hand, the assessee has duly explained that the aforesaid cash was received on account of sales of the fuel and which was duly accounted for and all the details of the sales were duly furnished which have not been disputed by the department. Therefore, the impugned addition made by the lower authorities is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same is ordered to be deleted.