DEEPAK DAHIYA Vs. I.T.O.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an assessee's appeal filed against the order of Ld. CIT(A) dated 21.06.2013. The assessee has taken 3 grounds of appeal but the crux of grievance of assessee is confirmation of addition made by Ld. CIT(A) amounting to Rs. 30,32,150/ - on account of cash deposited in saving bank accounts of the assessee and confirmation of addition amounting to Rs. 7,19,274/ - on account of credit card expenses.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that during assessment proceedings, the A.O. observed that assessee had made cash deposits in two accounts belonging to assessee. The assessee was show caused to explain the sources for deposit of same. However, the assessee did not appear before A.O. and also did not furnish any evidence in support of source of cash deposits. Therefore, A.O. made addition of Rs. 30,32,150/ -. The A.O. further observed that the assessee had made payment against credit card for which also no explanation was submitted, therefore, he made addition of Rs. 14,23,474/ - on account of credit card payment. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal; before Ld. CIT(A) and also filed additional evidence under Rule 46A of the act. Ld. CIT(A) after obtaining remand report from the A.O., was not satisfied with the explanation of assessee and therefore, he upheld the addition made by A.O. on account of cash deposits. However, regarding credit card payments, he reduced the addition on account of fact that A.O. during remand proceedings had admitted certain mistakes in calculation of additions. The findings of Ld. CIT(A) as contained in para 6.2, to 7.1 are reproduced below:

(3.) AT the outset, the Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee had explained the sources of cash deposit as part of it was received as gifts from his parents but the A.O. without examining the donor, rejected the contention of the assessee. Ld. A.R. submitted that for accepting gifts from parents, no occasion was required and natural love and affection was sufficient to receive the gifts. Reliance in this respect was placed on the case law of Shri Suresh Kumar Kakkar,, 324 ITR 231. It was submitted that the mother had gifted an amount of Rs. 2 lacs after withdrawal from her bank account and father had gifted amount of Rs. 10 lacs out of funds received by him on his retirement and in this respect our attention was invited to paper book page 37. It was submitted that Ld. CIT(A) rejected the contention of assessee despite evidence of retirement funds as per paper book page 37, was brought to his knowledge. It was further submitted that the fact of mother having drawn amount of Rs. 1.80 lacs from bank account was noted by Ld. CIT(A) and even after redeposit of Rs. 0.96 lacs in her bank account still there was balance of Rs. 0.84 lacs but Ld. CIT(A) did not allow relief for the left amount even. Ld. A.R. submitted that as part of additional evidence, the assessee had filed necessary explanations along with affidavits of parents along with retirement papers of father and therefore, primary onus was discharged and therefore, onus was on A.O. to dislodge the claim of assessee as he had not examined the donors. It was further submitted that the assessee was engaged in retail trading and had declared income u/s. 44AF and a part of cash sales was also utilized for making deposits in his bank account. It was submitted that assessee had earned about Rs. 8 lacs from business and rent but Ld. CIT(A) did not consider it and outrightly rejected the same. In view of the above, it was submitted that at least Rs. 20 lacs stood explained. As regards credit card payments, Ld. A.R. argued that credit card payments were made out of cash deposits only, therefore, addition on this account amounted to double addition.