NAVIN PIPALWA,YAVATMAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2 YAVATMAL, YAVATMAL

I find that this appeal was filed with a delay of 107 days. Upon hearing both the parties, I find that the delay of 107 days is saved by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed during National Lockdown

Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee challenging the action of AO in assuming jurisdiction u/s. 147 of the Act. In this regard, the ld. AR did not advance any arguments, hence, no adjudication is required.

Ground No. 2 raised by the assessee challenging the action of CIT(A) in confirming the addition made by the AO u/s. 69A of the Act.

Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. I note that the assessee is an individual and derives income from agency business of Haldiram Foods. It is noted that for the year under consideration, the assessee was a store keeper in the Jagdamba Traders. The ADIT (Inv.)-III, Indore found Shri Mukesh Chouhan, Prop. of M/s. Vinayak Traders is engaged in providing accommodation entries to various parties during the F.Y. 2011-12 (A.Y. 2012-13). According to the said investigation that various beneficiaries used to credit amounts into the bank account of the said M/s. Vinayak Traders and very said amounts were withdrawn from the said bank account belonging to M/s. Vinayak Traders and returned to the crediting parties in cash. According to the said information, the assessee before me is one such beneficiary.

The said information belonging to the assessee was forwarded to the AO. On an examination of such information, the AO found that the assessee credited an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- to the bank account of M/s. Vinayak Traders, being the assessee as beneficiary, the assessment

In the said reopening proceedings, the AO issued notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act, but no compliances were made on behalf of the assessee in response to the notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act. Having no option as no compliances were forthcoming from the assessee, the AO completed the assessment to his best judgment by adding an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- as accommodation entries received by the assessee in respect of his own unexplained money to the total income of the assessee u/s. 69A of the Act vide its order dated 16-12-2019 passed u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act. Having aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority. The assessee made submissions through ITBA portal. According to the CIT(A) that no proper replies filed in First Appellate proceedings, only an affidavit stating that the assessee has only one bank account in Omprakash Deora Peoples Co-operative Bank Ltd., Hingoli. According to the CIT(A) no onus has been discharged by the assessee before him and no supporting evidences like books of accounts, bank statements etc. were filed in support of contentions made by the assessee. The CIT(A) confirmed the view of AO in adding the said amount of Rs.15,00,000/- to the total income of the assessee u/s. 69A of the Act. The ld. AR, Shri Mahavir Atal drew my attention to the affidavit at page 1 of the paper book and argued that the assessee has only one bank account and no substantial income was reflected in the said bank account. He submits that the assessee was in small employment deriving very meager amounts as a salary. The ld. AR drew my attention to the bank statement which is at page 2 of the paper book and argued that there are no such

The ld. DR, Shri G.J. Ninawe relied on the orders of both the authorities below. I note that there was no compliances before the AO as could be seen from the assessment order and that no appearance was put up by the assessee in response to the notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act. Before the CIT(A) also instead of contending that the AO did not conduct independent enquiry and no details of money trail was referred, no evidence whatsoever were filed by the assessee except an affidavit and a bank statement. There were many opportunities given by the AO as well as CIT(A) but no evidences in support of claim of assessee were ever produced before both the authorities below. The provisions u/s. 69A requires explanation of assessee about the nature and source of acquisition of money and if any explanation offered by the assessee is not satisfactory in the opinion of AO, the money is deemed to be income of the assessee. Admittedly, as discussed above, no explanation was offered by the assessee in the assessment proceedings to the satisfaction of the AO and it is

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