ABDUL JABBAR,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD 8(2), HYDERABAD

Assessee is an individual and claims to have been working in Tech Mahindra Ltd. Learned Assessing Officer found that there was a cash deposit in the account of the assessee with HDFC Bank, during the demonetization period, to the tune of Rs. 16,64,000/-. On verification, learned Assessing Officer further found that there were various credit

Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the credits into his bank account comprised officer salary, which was being credited into his bank account by the Tech Mahindra Ltd., in respect of which the TDS was also directed. Apart from this the assessee also produced an agreement of sale in respect of the cash deposit during the monitoring period and stated that having sold his property, he deposited the sale consideration into bank due to demonetization.

Ld. CIT(A) observed that as per the HDFC Bank statement, the assessee received his salary from Tech Mahindra through cheques. Ld. CIT(A), however, did not accept the contention of the assessee as to the source of the deposits made during demonetization period being the sale consideration received under the so-called agreement of sale, on the ground that such a document does not mention receipt of any amount in cash. Observing so, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee and upheld the entire addition.

Assessee is therefore filed this appeal before this Tribunal and contended that the agreement of sale with the possession, under which the assessee sold the property is a registered document and though the

Per contra, Ld. DR stated that there is no evidence to show that the sale consideration under the document dated 28/03/2016 under which the assessee claims to have sold his property, was paid in cash. He, therefore, submitted that the authorities are justified in making and upholding the additions.

I have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. Insofar as the credits through banking channels are concerned, the assessee claims that such amounts were received from the employer, Tech Mahindra and TDS was deducted in respect of such payments. It is a verifiable fact. The authorities did not make any effort to verify whether any TDS was made in respect of such receipts, basing on the PAN.

Apart from this the agreement of sale with possession, under which the assessee claims to have received a sum of Rs. 16.20 lakhs is a registered document, registered with the Joint Sub Registrar, Doodhbowli, Hyderabad on 28/03/2016 and bears Document No. 860/2016. The requisite stamp duty was paid, as per this document on 28/03/2016 itself by way of challan No. 774491. If this document is a genuine document, it can safely be

Verification of TDS details and also the genuineness of the document will make the things clear and since tax cannot be levied or collected, basing on suspicion, and without making diligent enquiries. With this view of the matter, I set aside the impugned order the directed the learned Assessing Officer to verify the whether the credits through banking channels was received from Tech Mahindra Ltd., and if so, to treat the same as salary and other benefits of the assessee, received from Tech Mahindra Ltd. Learned Assessing Officer will also verify whether the document dt. 28/03/2016 is a genuine document and if so, to treat the consideration covered by it as sale consideration. Grounds are answered accordingly.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.