Kalpeshbhai Amthabhai Desai Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad)
ITAT Ahmedabad held that rejection of evidence merely because it in handwritten form is unjustified. Accordingly, matter remanded back to CIT(A) for fresh consideration. Appeal allowed.
Facts- The assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of retail milk selling. For the relevant AY 2012-13, the assessee did not originally file a return of income, as the total income was below the basic exemption limit under the Act. Subsequently, a notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued by the AO on 25.03.2019, prompting the assessee to file a return on 10.04.2019, declaring a total income of Rs.1,66,160/-.
During the assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee had deposited an amount of Rs.16,35,513/- in cash in his bank account with ICICI Bank. The AO, after issuing several notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act and considering the submissions, added the said amount of Rs.16,35,513/- as unexplained cash deposits u/s. 69A of the Act. The assessee explained that the cash deposits were derived from the business of retail milk selling. The assessee further submitted documentary evidence, including a ‘desi hisab’ (cash book in handwritten form), bank book, and statements to justify the cash deposits. However, the AO disregarded these submissions, citing that the evidence was insufficient and lacking in credibility, particularly due to its handwritten nature.
