BIKESH KUMAR,FIROZABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(2)(1) , FIROZABAD

I have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The assessee is engaged in the business of selling potatoes to persons outside Agra for which the buyers were sending the sales consideration by depositing the money in the bank account of the assessee. The assessee withdraws cash from the said bank account for making payments for purchase of potatoes. This business has been carried out by the assessee for so many years. The return of income for the assessment year 2013-14 was filed by the assessee on 31-03- 2014 declaring total income of Rs. 2,49,110. As per the information received from DDIT Investigation Unit- 1, Agra on Insight Portal, the Learned AO noted that assessee deposited cash of Rs. 26,92,000/- in his savings bank account maintained with HDFC bank. Notice under section 133(6) of the Act was issued to the assessee seeking information about the source of such cash deposit which was not complied with by the assessee. Accordingly, the Learned AO concluded that the income shown in the return is not commensurate with the cash deposits made in the bank account and accordingly the differential amount represent income escaping assessment for which the assessment was sought to be reopened vide issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act on 31-03-2021. No return of income was furnished by the assessee in response to notice under section 148 of the Act. Later, the notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 11-11-2021 was issued to the assessee which was not complied. Further notices under section 142(1) of the Act were issued on 14-12-2021, 2-2-2022 followed by final showcause notice dated 10-2-2022 for completion of assessment ex parte. Even for this, there was no response from the side of the assessee. This non-cooperative attitude of the assessee forced the Learned AO to complete the reassessment under section 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act on 21-3-2022 by adding the differential sum of cash deposits and income returned by the assessee in the total sum Rs 24,18,701 as unexplained money under section 69-A of the Act.

The assessee gave ground wise submissions before the Learned NFAC which are reproduced in the appellate order itself. But the Learned NFAC simply ignored the same and dismissed the appeal of the assessee without giving its independent findings on merits. Before me, the assessee had furnished the additional evidences in the form of purchase bills for potato which are enclosed in pages 7 to 19 of the Paper Book. These additional evidences are crucial for adjudication of the issue in dispute before me and hence the same are hereby admitted. The copy of bank statements and Income tax returns of assessment years 2012-13 to 2014- 15 were filed before me at my behest. I find that these evidences require factual verification by the Learned AO and hence in the interest of justice and fair play, I deem it fit and appropriate to restore the entire appeal to the file of the Learned AO for denovo adjudication in accordance with law.

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