Tanaji Parilal Gawade Vs ITO (ITAT Pune)
ITAT Pune held that addition towards unexplained cash deposits partly allowed considering the nature of business. However, since full details were not furnished, part addition towards unexplained cash deposits was upheld. Accordingly, appeal partly allowed.
Facts- The assessee is an individual and proprietor of M/s. Hindavi Developers engaged in business of development and sale of plots in rural areas to the needy customers. During scrutiny assessment, AO noted that the assessee has made cash deposit of Rs.113,23,000/- during the relevant assessment year. In absence of any details before him, the Assessing Officer made addition of the entire amount of Rs.113,23,000/- to the total income of the assessee treating the same unexplained cash deposits. AO also made several other additions/ disallowances.
CIT(A) / NFAC upheld the action of the Assessing Officer in completing the assessment u/s 144 of the Act in absence of any evidence filed before him. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.
Conclusion- Held that in our opinion and considering the nature of business carried on by the assessee and the turnover disclosed which is mainly received in cash and since it is also not the case of the Assessing Officer that total deposits in the bank account both cash and through cheques / DD etc. far exceeds the turnover disclosed by the assessee, the addition of the entire cash deposited in the bank account appears to be on the higher side. At the same time, by not furnishing the full details as per the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer, the claim of the assessee that no addition is called for cannot be accepted.
