Appeal allowed in tax case regarding unexplained deposits. Order pronounced on Oct 29, 2018.

The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the order was pronounced on 29th October 2018. The case involved challenging additions made on account of cash and unexplained deposits in bank accounts for Assessment Year 2009-10. The Assessing Officer added deposits totaling Rs. 2,73,00,000 under section 68 of the Act. The CIT(A) upheld the additions, stating the assessee failed to discharge the onus. However, upon review, it was found that the evidence and explanations provided were not properly considered. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for proper evaluation of the evidence.

---

---

Issues involved:
Challenging additions made on account of cash and unexplained deposits in bank accounts for Assessment Year 2009-10.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the quantum of assessment under section 143(3) for the Assessment Year 2009-10. The Assessing Officer made additions on cash and unexplained deposits in various bank accounts totaling to Rs. 2,73,00,000. The assessee's case was selected for scrutiny due to cash deposits in the saving bank account. Despite filing replies and details, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied and added the deposits under section 68 of the Act.

Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted detailed written submissions and evidence, which were forwarded to the Assessing Officer for a remand report. The remand report was not discussed in the appellate order, but the CIT(A) confirmed the Assessing Officer's action, stating that the assessee failed to discharge the onus under section 68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer made additions for cash deposits in various bank accounts, including those related to advance for land purchase and unexplained deposits in ICICI Bank and PNB.

The assessee argued that numerous pieces of evidence supporting the explanations for each deposit were not properly considered by the authorities. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer to give proper findings on the evidence and statements provided during assessment and appellate proceedings. The Department Representative supported the orders of the Assessing Officer and CIT(A), stating that the assessee failed to discharge its onus.

Upon reviewing the evidence, it was found that none of the evidence was properly dealt with or rebutted in the remand report or by the CIT(A). As a result, the issue was remanded back to the Assessing Officer to consider all evidence and explanations provided by the assessee. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the order was pronounced on 29th October 2018.

---