Umesh Kumar vs Income Tax Officer

These assessee’s twin appeals ITA Nos. 922 & 925/Del/2020; both for assessment year 2010-11 & 2011-12, arise against Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short, ‘CIT(A)’), Rohtak’s orders dated 19.12.2019 & 16.12.2019, passed in case nos. 294/2015-16 & 293/2015-16, involving proceedings u/s 144 r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Act’, respectively.

Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused.

Learned counsel submits at the outset that the assessee raises his identical first and foremost ground challenging both the lower appellate proceedings and lower appellate findings treating his cash deposits of Rs. 6 lakhs and 24 lakhs; assessment year wise; respectively as unexplained u/s 69B of the Act. His admitted case all along is that the same had come from his friend as well as client for further investments in various immoveable properties in Chhattisgarh which could not be substantiated by leading the relevant cogent supportive evidence during assessment as well as lower appellate proceedings. Our attention is further invited to page 2 of the assessment discussion that the assessee friend was named as Om Prakash s/o Shri Prithvi Singh, r/o Village- Nandini Ahirwara, Bhilai to this effect as well.

All these assessee’s submissions hardly deserve to be accepted in entirely as he has failed to discharge his bounden duty to plead and prove source of the impugned cash deposits/investments both before the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A). We thus quote Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC) & CIT Vs. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) to conclude both the learned lower authorities have rightly made the impugned addition in his hands in principle.

There is yet another equally important aspect of the matter as well. The Revenue could hardly dispute that both the learned lower authorities have nowhere considered the assessee as well as his family’s socio-economic status as well as accumulated past savings from day to day regular vocational activities. That being the case, we are of the considered view that the assessee deserves a lumpsump relief of Rs. 5 lakhs in former assessment year 2010-11 and Rs. 2lakhs in the latter assessment year 2011-12; respectively in very terms. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. All these identical substantive grounds in the assessee’s respective appeals are partly allowed.

Learned counsel next fairly submits that the assessee does not wish to press any of its remaining substantive grounds in both these appeal subject to a rider that the same are not treated as precedent. Rejected in very terms therefore.

This assessee’s twin appeals ITA Nos. 922 & 925/Del/2020 are partly allowed. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.