Dushyant M. Pandya Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad)
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition under section 69A of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained cash credit merely on the basis of non-compliance of third party not justified. Accordingly, addition deleted as source of cash deposit duly explained.
Facts- Solitary issue in the present appeal relates to the addition made to the income of the assessee on account of cash found deposited in the bank account during demonetization period remaining unexplained, amounting to Rs.10.00 lakhs.
CIT(A) passed ex-parte order confirming action of AO. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.
Conclusion- Held that the assessee was an agriculturist and earning agriculture income. Therefore, the rejection of the assessee’s explanation merely for the reason that the party to whom he sold the agriculture produce did not respond to the notice under section 133(6) of the Act is grossly unjust. The assessee cannot be punished for the non-compliance of a third party. Merely because the said party does not respond to the said notice, it does not in any way dilute all other voluminous evidences filed by the assessee to prove the fact that he was an agriculturist earning agriculture income from year to year. The assessee has sufficiently discharged its onus of proving the source of cash deposited in the bank account, as being out of sale of agriculture produce.
