MOHAMMED HAFEEZ QURESHI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 114 days in filing of the appeal by the assessee for which a petition for condonation of delay along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay in filing of the appeal was filed which is

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and has not filed his return of income for the A.Y 2012- 13. As per the information received, there are total cash deposits of Rs.51,01,500/- in the bank account maintained with SBI, Chandulal Baradari Branch, Hyderabad. Therefore, the assessment has been reopened u/s 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 29.3.2019 was issued and served on the assessee. The assessee failed to comply with the notice issued u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 142(1) of the Act on various dates, but the assessee neither appeared nor filed any details. Therefore, the assessment has been completed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and determined the total income at Rs.51,01,500/- by making addition towards unexplained credit u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961.

Aggrieved with such assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT (A). The assessee has filed written submission along with certain evidences. The evidences filed by the assessee has been forwarded to the

Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT (A) is erred in sustaining the addition made by the Assessing Officer towards cash deposits without appreciating the fact that as per bank statement and cash flow statement from the assessee, there are sufficient cash withdrawal either on the same day or previous day to explain the cash deposits into bank account. She further explained that the assessee being in the business of Beef Meat Trading has made periodical cash deposits and withdrawal from his bank account to show the transactions in bank account for the purpose of availing loan. The credits appearing in bank account is not received from any other person, but rotated out of cash in hand available with the assessee. Although the assessee has filed the relevant details, the learned CIT (A) sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer towards cash deposits.

The learned DR, on the other hand, supporting the orders of the learned CIT (A) submitted that the assessee could not explain the nature and source for cash deposits. Although the assessee claims to have filed relevant details. but on perusal of the order of the learned CIT (A), it is undisputedly clear that no evidence has been placed to explain the source. Therefore, the learned CIT (A) has rightly sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer and their order should be upheld.

We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We have also carefully considered the relevant bank statement of Account No.30275144377 maintained with SBI for the period w.e.f. 1.4.2011 to 31.3.2012. From the bank statement filed by the assessee, we notice that there are periodical cash deposits and withdrawals from the same Bank Account either on the same day or one or two days prior to the date of cash deposits. We further notice that the assessee has deposited and withdrawn equivalent amount in all the occasions. From the above, it is very clear that the explanation of the assessee that he has made cash deposits into bank account and withdrawn either on the same day or prior to the date to show the transactions in bank account for the purpose of availing loan facility appears to be bonafide and genuine. Therefore, in our considered view, the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT (A) erred in treating the total cash deposits as unexplained cash credit of the assessee. Further. The assessee

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