Kailashnath Arunkumar Dube Vs ITO (ITAT Surat)
In the matter abovementioned ITAT partly allowed the appeal by estimation of 10% of total cash deposit towards possible revenue leakage.
Assessee didnot file ITR for AY 2012-13 during which assessee made cash deposit of Rs.45,69,722/-. The case was reopened and notice u/s 148 was sent through e-mail against which no ITR was filed. Hence, AO made addition u/s 69A.
Before CIT (A) it was argued that assessee was engaged in the activity of taking cash from various parties and used to issue cheques and taking 1.00% of commission on the transaction. The reasons recorded and sanction obtained u/s 151 was not provided to the assessee. Assessee furnished statement of cash and other credit as informed by banker of assessee. Total commission earned by assessee falls below taxable limit and hence no ITR was filed. CIT (A) after seeking remand report, dismissed the appeal after observing that there is delay of 50 days in filing appeal. CIT (A) further held that assessee has not intentionally adhered to various notices issued by AO which resulted into passing assessment order.
Before ITAT additional ground pertaining to delay was taken and it was submitted that CIT (A) erred in not condoning delay by invoking provision of section 249 (3). No information regarding reopening was provided to assessee. AO didnot make any enquiry regarding cash deposit in the account of the assessee. Mere cash deposit cannot be considered as income. Assessee was in the business of cheque discounting, the assessee was receiving cash from his customers and used to issue cheque. In another alternative, assessee submits that peak balance in both accounts on various occasions were not more than Rs.1.95 lakhs, therefore, at the worst only peak balance could be added.
