KAMALENDU DAS,PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. ITO, WD-2, HALDIA, KOLKATA

The assessee in the present case is an individual, who filed his return of income for the year under consideration originally on 25.01.2005 declaring total income of Rs.1,18,886/-. During the course of assessment proceedings for the immediately succeeding year, i.e. A.Y. ./2015 Assessment year: 2004-2005 Page 2 of 5 2005-06, it was found by the Assessing Officer that the assessee had maintained the Savings Bank account with Contai Cooperative Bank Limited, which was not disclosed in the financial statements filed along with his return of income for the year under consideration. He, therefore, reopened the assessment after recording the reasons and issued a notice under section 148 on 24.03.2008. There was, however, no response to the said notice received from the assessee and only after a couple of reminders by the Assessing Officer, it was submitted by the assessee that the transactions reflected in his Bank account with Contai Cooperative Bank Limited were rolling out of his own funds. This submission of the assessee was not found satisfactory by the Assessing Officer and he added peak credit of Rs.2,00,000/- of the said Bank Account to the total income of the assessee in the assessment completed under section 143(3)/ 147 vide order dated 19.12.2008.

Against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) read with section 147, an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) challenging the addition of Rs.2,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of peak credit appearing in his Bank account. There was, however, no compliance to the notices issued by the ld. CIT(Appeals) fixing the said appeal of the assessee for hearing from time to time. The ld. CIT(Appeals), therefore, disposed of the appeal of the assessee vide his appellate order dated 25.09.2013 passed ex parte, wherein he confirmed the addition of Rs.2,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer. On further appeal, the Tribunal set aside the ex parte order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) dated 25.09.2013 and remitted the matter back to him for disposing of the appeal of the asseessee afresh on merit after giving proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. As per the direction of the Tribunal, opportunity was given by the ld. CIT(Appeals) to the assessee to explain the transactions appearing in his undisclosed Bank account with Contai Cooperative Bank Limited. In this regard, it was submitted by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) that the sale proceeds of his regular business of trading in Cashew nuts ./2015 Assessment year: 2004-2005 Page 3 of 5 were deposited in the said Bank account and certain expenditure out of the deposits so made was incurred relating to his business. It was also contended on behalf of the assessee that only the deposits in the said account were taken into consideration by the Assessing Officer and the corresponding withdrawals and payments appearing in the debit side were completely ignored by him. These submissions made by the assessee were not found acceptable by the ld. CIT(Appeals) and he proceeded to confirm the addition of Rs.2,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer for the following reasons given in the impugned order:- ”I have carefully considered the material before me. I found that the AO made the addition of Rs.2,00,000/- as peak credit in the Bank Account No. S.B. 1895 with Contai Cooperative Bank Ltd., which is not disclosed in the books of accounts. On going through the balance sheet it is found that there is not shown in the bank balance in the S.B. A/c. 18954 with Contai Cooperative Bank Ltd. The appellant only shown the Bank balance of Rs.1990/- with Cooperative Bank Ltd., Contai Branch C.D. A/c. No. 1437. The A/R of the appellant also not filed any submission and explanation about the addition made by the AO of Rs.2,00,000/- as unexplained deposit in the bank account. I found it is very reasonable that the Assessing officer taken peak credit of the undisclosed bank accounts and made the addition of Rs.2,00,000/-. The addition of Rs.2,00,000/- in respect of unexplained deposit in based on sound reasoning as the nature and source of the peak of the deposits has not been explained satisfactorily by the appellant at any stage. Hence, the addition of Rs.2,00,000/- as unexplained deposit in Bank A/c. is confirmed. These grounds are not allowed”.

I have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. At the outset, it is observed that there is a delay of two days on the part of the assessee in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of the said delay and keeping in view the reasons given therein, I am satisfied that there was a sufficient cause which resulted in filing this appeal belatedly by the assessee. I, therefore, condone the said delay and proceed to dispose of this appeal on merit. ./2015 Assessment year: 2004-2005 Page 4 of 5

The only contention raised by the assessee at the time of hearing before me is that all the transactions appearing in the Bank account with Contai Cooperative Bank Limited were duly reflected in the books of account regularly maintained by the assessee and although this stand was clearly taken by the assessee by filing additional ground of appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals), the same has not been considered by the ld. CIT(Appeals). In reply to a query raised by me, he, however, admitted that there was no application filed by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appals) seeking admission of the said additional ground. He has also failed to explain as to what prevented the assessee to take this stand before the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings when the transactions appearing in the relevant Bank account were actually reflected in the books of account regularly maintained by the assessee as claimed now. He has also not been able to offer any explanation in reply to a query that when all the transactions in the relevant Bank account were recorded in the books of account regularly maintained by the assessee as claimed by him, how the closing balance of the said account was not reflected in the financial statements filed by the assessee along with his return of income. He has merely stated that the case of the assessee was not properly represented either before the Assessing Officer or before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and one more opportunity may, therefore, be given to the assessee by sending the matter back to the ld. CIT(Appeals) for fresh consideration. After taking into consideration all the relevant facts of the case which clearly show the casual and negligent approach of the assessee, I am unable to accept this contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee. In my opinion, the assessee has already been given sufficient opportunity to explain the transactions appearing in his undisclosed Bank account maintained with Contai Cooperative Bank Limited and since he has failed to avail this opportunity and has also failed to offer any satisfactory explanation in this regard, I am of the view that there is no justifiable reason to interfere with the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) confirming the ./2015 Assessment year: 2004-2005 Page 5 of 5 addition of Rs.2,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of peak credit appearing in the undisclosed Bank account of the assessee. I, therefore, uphold the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) on this issue and dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on February 10, 2016.