AMARESH PANDEY,SONEBHADRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3 (5), SONEBHADRA

The learned AR of the assessee has submitted that originally the appeal was filed on 7.2.2018 before the CIT(A) but thereafter, the appeal was transferred to National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi in terms of the notification dated 25th September, 2020 issued by the CBDT. The learned AR has further submitted that the AO passed the assessment order under section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) and made the addition of Rs. 11,80,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposit in the bank account. He has submitted that the assessee has shown the business receipt of Rs. 18,45,385/- and explained the source of deposit in the bank account as out of the business receipt. However, in the absence of the relevant details and supporting evidence being purchase and sale vouchers, the CIT(A) has not accepted this explanation of the assessee regarding the source of deposit and confirmed the addition made by the AO. The learned AR has thus submitted that the assessee may be granted one more opportunity to produce all relevant details and supporting evidence in support of the source of deposit and therefore, the matter may be remanded to the record of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication of the same.

On the other hand, the learned DR has submitted that the assessee has not filed any return of income under section 139 of the Income Tax Act and only after notice under section 148 was issued by the AO the assessee filed the return of income showing the business income on presumptive basis under section 44AF without maintaining any books of accounts. The learned DR has further submitted that these contention of the assessee have been duly considered by the CIT(A) in the impugned order and it was found that the 2 assessee has made a fixed deposit of Rs. 10,00,000/- through a single entry which cannot be considered as a business receipt. There is no withdrawal from the bank account of the assessee and therefore, the contention of the assessee cannot be accepted that the deposit is from the business receipt. He has further submitted that the assessee has not produced any documentary evidence to show the purchase and sales and therefore, in the absence of any supporting evidence, the AO is justified in making the addition which is rightly confirmed by the CIT(A). He has relied upon the orders of the authorities below.

In the rejoinder, the learned AR of the assessee has submitted that the assessee undertakes to file the supporting evidence as well as the details regarding the business transactions. He has submitted that the assessee is engaged in the business of supply of aggregate and stone dust.

I have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. There is no dispute that the assessee has not filed any return of income under section 139 of the Income Tax Act.

The AO received AIR information regarding deposit of cash of Rs. 11,80,000/- in the saving bank account of the assessee and accordingly issued notice under section 148 on 30th March, 2017. The AO, thereafter, issued notice under section 142(1) various times requiring the assessee to produce the copies of income tax returns for the assessment year under consideration, copy of bank account statement and explanation of the source of deposits of Rs. 11,80,000/- in the saving bank account.

Initially, there was no response on behalf of the assessee to the notice issued by the AO which lead to issuing the notice under section 144 of the Income Tax Act. In response to the notice issued under section 144, the assessee filed the return of income showing total income of Rs. 1,92,223/- under section 44AF of the Income Tax Act. Though the assessee has explained 3