ITO Ward -35 New Delhi. Vs. Shri Vipin Aggarwal (4), 6/104, Gali No. 4,60ft. Road Viswas Nagar, Delhi 110032.
January, 30th 2014
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH: `H' NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
SHRI A. T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
I.T.A. No. 3147/Del/2010
Assessment Years: 2006-07
ITO Vs. Shri Vipin Aggarwal
Ward -35 (4), 6/104, Gali No. 4,,
New Delhi. 60ft. Road
Viswas Nagar, Delhi
Revenue by: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, Sr.DR.
Assessee by: None
PER SHAMIM YAHYA, AM:
This appeal by the revenue directed against the order of ld. CIT
(Appeals), dated 29.01.2009 and pertains to AY 2006-07.
2. The issue raised is that ld. CIT (A) erred in holding that the amount of
cash deposited by the assessee, represents turnover of the assessee on
account of purchase / sale of cloth.
2 I.T.A. No. 3147/Del/2010
3. In this case information was received as per AIR Information that
assessee has deposited cash of Rs.51,48,600/- in IDBI Bank. In this regard
AO noted that assessee has shown income from business and profession
amounting to Rs.75,450/- on sale of Rs.8,65,480/-. He has also shown salary
income of Rs.62,129/-. Enquiry was made by the AO regarding cash deposit.
In this regard assessee made the following reply to the AO:
"Regarding cash deposit in the bank account with the
IDBI bank, it may be noticed from the bank statement
that there is deposit in cash and simultaneously cash
withdrawals. It is the same cash which is being
circulated time and again.
This activity of depositing cash and simultaneously
withdrawal is attributed to the mental depression and
unstable mind of the assessee, who found the mode of
depositing cash and its withdrawals as self sooting and
giving a feeling that he is actively associates with the
bank and business.
A perusal of the bank statement will show that the peak
credit at a given time after taking credit for the opening
balance as on 01.04.2005 was never more than
The said sum of Rs.1,50,000/- also represents monetary
help received from relatives as an act of kind gesture to a
3 I.T.A. No. 3147/Del/2010
However without prejudice and not admitting the same
as income for the year, the assessee in order to buy peace
of mind with the deptt offer the said sum of Rs.1,50,000/-
for taxation and as such surrender the same. In view of
this it is further requested that the return filed originally
may be treated as revised accordingly."
4. AO was not satisfied with the above. He noted that cash deposit was
made in this account from 15 towns all over India from different dates hence
he did not believe the assessee's submission. AO concluded as under:
"After consideration of surrender of Rs.1,50,000/- by the
assessee and retail sale amount as declared in ITR of the
assessee a sum of Rs.41,33,120/- [Rs.51,48,600/-
(Rs.1,50,000/- + Rs.8,65,480/-)] is added to the income
of the assessee as unexplained cash u/s 69A of the I.T.
Act in addition to surrender amount of Rs.1,50,000/-
which is considered and added to the income to the
5. Against the above order assessee appealed to the ld. CIT (A). There
the assessee submitted that the said deposits were sale proceeds of goods (all
cloths sent outside) and the parties to whom goods were sold deposited the
amount in cash at their stations in IDBI Bank and same was again withdrawn
by the assessee for fresh purchases. It was submitted that this submission
was made to the AO. It was also submitted that similar deposits were there
in the subsequent assessment year and the AO has accepted the assessee's
4 I.T.A. No. 3147/Del/2010
version that those are turnover and assessed the profit at 5%. Ld. CIT (A)
accepted the above contention. He directed the AO to delete the addition and
directed to assess at Rs.2,14,156/- being 5% on turnover of Rs.42,83,120/- in
the returned income of Rs.1,06,800/-.
6. Against the above order revenue is in appeal before us.
7. We have heard the ld. DR None appeared on behalf of the assessee
despite sufficient notices. In our considered opinion the matter can be
disposed off by hearing the ld. DR and perusing the records.
8. Ld. DR submitted that assessee had submitted before the AO that
assessee was under mental constraint and he used to deposit cash and make
withdrawal from the bank. However, before the ld. CIT (A) assessee has
made totally different submission that the deposits were his turnover from
the business. In this background the ld. DR submitted that the matter may be
remitted to the file of the AO so that he can examine this version of the
9. We have carefully considered the submission. We find that assessee
has made totally different submissions before the AO and ld. CIT (A). Ld.
CIT (A) has accepted the assessee's version without giving the AO an
opportunity to go through this new submission. We find that interest of
justice will be served if the matter is remitted to the file of the AO. The AO
5 I.T.A. No. 3147/Del/2010
is directed to consider the issue afresh in light of the submissions made
before the ld. CIT (A). Needless to add assessee should be grated adequate
opportunity of being heard.
10. In the result, this appeal filed by the revenue stands allowed for
Order pronounced in the open Court on 22/01/2014
( A.T. VARKEY ) (SHAMIM YAHYA)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Copy forwarded to:
5. DR: ITAT