Pabitra Mohan Samal v. ITO - Taxpublishers.in

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax PublishersIT Appeal No. 314 (Ctk.) of 2017 2020 TaxPub(DT) 1475 (Ctk-Trib) : (2020) 181 ITD 0391 IN THE ITAT, CUTTACK BENCH C.M. GARG, J.M. & L.P. SAHU, A.M. Pabitra Mohan Samal v. ITO IT Appeal No. 314 (Ctk.) of 2017 A.Y. 2011-12 14 January, 2020 Appellant by: D. Parida and C. Parida, ARs Respondent by: J.K. Lenka, D.R. ORDER *L.P. Sahu, A.M.* This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner (Appeals)-2, Bhubaneswar, dated 13-6-2017 for assessment year 2011-12 on the following grounds :-- 1. That the order passed by the learned Income Tax Officer (ITO) is arbitrary, excessive, contrary to facts and bad in law. 2. That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly upheld the addition of Rs. 36,58,500 made by the learned assessing officer to the total income as unexplained deposit in Axis Bank (A/c No. 909010041840143), without considering the details/documents/explanations/source of deposit of the same. 3. That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly upheld the addition of Rs. 13,00,000 made by the learned assessing officer to the total income as unexplained deposit in State Bank of India (A/c No. 31264302987), without considering the details/documents/explanations/source of deposit of the same. 4. That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly upheld the addition of Rs. 1,00,000 made by the learned assessing officer to the total income as unexplained deposit in Punjab National Bank (A/c No. 05530000400018385), without considering the details/documents/explanations/source of deposit of the same. 5. That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly upheld the addition of Rs. 7,00,000 made by the learned assessing officer to the total income as unexplained deposit in HDFC Bank (A/c No. 012219300078637), without considering the details/documents/explanations/source of deposit of the same. 6. That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly upheld the addition of Rs. 1,00,000 made by the learned assessing officer to the total income as unexplained investment in purchase of flat without considering the details/documents/explanations submitted in this regard. 7. Any other grounds that will be urged at the time of hearing. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income on 5-9-2011 declaring total income at Rs. 2,22,230 for the assessment year 2011-12. The return of income of the assessee was processed on 31-7-2012 and the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. The notices under section 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act and other statutory notice has been issued to the assessee. On verification of the return filed by the assessee, the assessing officer noticed that the assessee has shown salary income, claimed deduction under section 80C of the Act. On further verification of bank statements, it was noticed that the cash have been deposited in his bank account on various dates, which were not disclosed in the return of income filed by the assessee. The assessee filed written submission on 20-8-2013 and furnished statements of six bank accounts. Accordingly, the assessing officer framed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act making various additions, details of which are as under :-- SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax PublishersIT Appeal No. 314 (Ctk.) of 2017
2020 TaxPub(DT) 1475 (Ctk-Trib) : (2020) 181 ITD 0391

IN THE ITAT, CUTTACK BENCH

C.M. GARG, J.M. & L.P. SAHU, A.M.

Pabitra Mohan Samal v. ITO

IT Appeal No. 314 (Ctk.) of 2017

A.Y. 2011-12

14 January, 2020

Appellant by: D. Parida and C. Parida, ARs

Respondent by: J.K. Lenka, D.R.

ORDER

L.P. Sahu, A.M.

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner (Appeals)-2, Bhubaneswar, dated 13-6-2017 for assessment year 2011-12 on the following grounds :--

1. That the order passed by the learned Income Tax Officer (ITO) is arbitrary, excessive, contrary to facts and bad in law.

2. That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly upheld the addition of Rs. 36,58,500 made by the learned assessing officer to the total income as unexplained deposit in Axis Bank (A/c No. 909010041840143), without considering the details/documents/explanations/source of deposit of the same.

3. That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly upheld the addition of Rs. 13,00,000 made by the learned assessing officer to the total income as unexplained deposit in State Bank of India (A/c No. 31264302987), without considering the details/documents/explanations/source of deposit of the same.

4. That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly upheld the addition of Rs. 1,00,000 made by the learned assessing officer to the total income as unexplained deposit in Punjab National Bank (A/c No. 05530000400018385), without considering the details/documents/explanations/source of deposit of the same.

5. That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly upheld the addition of Rs. 7,00,000 made by the learned assessing officer to the total income as unexplained deposit in HDFC Bank (A/c No. 012219300078637), without considering the details/documents/explanations/source of deposit of the same.

6. That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly upheld the addition of Rs. 1,00,000 made by the learned assessing officer to the total income as unexplained investment in purchase of flat without considering the details/documents/explanations submitted in this regard.

7. Any other grounds that will be urged at the time of hearing.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income on 5-9-2011 declaring total income at Rs. 2,22,230 for the assessment year 2011-12. The return of income of the assessee was processed on 31-7-2012 and the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. The notices under section 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act and other statutory notice has been issued to the assessee. On verification of the return filed by the assessee, the assessing officer noticed that the assessee has shown salary income, claimed deduction under section 80C of the Act. On further verification of bank statements, it was noticed that the cash have been deposited in his bank account on various dates, which were not disclosed in the return of income filed by the assessee. The assessee filed written submission on 20-8-2013 and furnished statements of six bank accounts. Accordingly, the assessing officer framed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act making various additions, details of which are as under :--