SUNIL JAYANTILAL SACHDEV,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-4(1), HYDERABAD

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, had not filed his return of income for the A.Y under consideration u/s 139 (1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer on receipt of information that the appellant had made cash deposits in the Bank Account maintained with AXIS Bank during the demonetization period, issued notice u/s 142(1) of the Page 1 of 3 I.T. Act, 1961 and calling upon the appellant to file return of income. The appellant neither complied with the notices nor appeared before the Assessing Officer. Under the circumstances, the Assessing Officer was constrained to complete the ”Best Judgement Assessment” u/s 144, by bringing to tax cash deposits as unexplained income of Rs.37,12,324/-.

Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT (A) who, vide impugned order, while confirming the action of the Assessing Officer, however, directed the Assessing Officer to adopt the correct figure of the cash deposits. Accordingly, the learned CIT (A) set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer.

Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee had filed detailed explanation as to the source of the cash deposits into AXIS Bank and the learned NFAC without adverting to the submissions and evidences submitted by the assessee merely confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. Thus, the learned Counsel for the assessee prayed that the matter may be remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer for proper verification of the evidence and de novo assessment for which the learned DR has no serious objection. Hence, I set aside

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.