IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH : CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S.JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.No.2423/Chny/2018 Assessment year : 2015-16 Shri Meeran Mohideen, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, 4/201,4th street,5th main road, Non-corporate ward-5(5) Muthamizh Nagar,Kodungaiyur Chennai. Chennai 600 018. [PAN CDUPM 2267 C ] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Mr.D.Anand,Advocate Respondent by : Mr.AR. V.Sreenivasan,JCIT,D.R & Date of Hearing : 04-09-2019 & Date of Pronouncement : 04-09-2019 ORDER PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER This is appeal filed by assessee against order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-5, Chennai in ITA No.256/C.I.T(A)-5/2017-18 dated 25.07.2018 for assessment year 2015-16. :- 2 -: ITA No. 2423/chny/2018 2. Shri D.Anand represented on behalf of Assessee and Shri AR.V.Sreenivasan represented on behalf of Revenue. 3. It was submitted by ld.AR that assessee is individual, who is doing business of indenting agent for import of paper. It was submission that in course of demonetization period, assessee had made cash deposit of Rs.3,37,40,770/- in his current account. sources for deposits were verified with documents furnished such as Bills of entry, bank statement with detailed nature of his business. It was submitted that evidences produced were accepted and no unaccounted income was found in hands of assessee. It was further submitted that however, Assessing Officer had questioned opening balance of capital in assessee s hand, which had been claimed by assessee to be out of his past savings being opening balance, which was shown as Rs.25,12,359/-. Under scheme of PMGKY-2016, assessee had disclosed amount of Rs.20,00,000/- and paid tax thereon. For balance of Rs.5,12,369/-, assessee had shown adequate source , as per Assessing Officer for assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15, totaling to Rs.3,16,390/-. Assessing Officer did not accept assessee s claim in respect of balance of Rs.1,95,969/-, which had been claimed by assessee as past savings. It was submitted that :- 3 -: ITA No. 2423/chny/2018 evidences had been produced explaining his past saving, but same had been treated as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of Act and added to total income for impugned assessment year without giving any reason. It was prayer that addition of Rs.1,95,969/- added as unexplained cash credit be deleted in interest of justice. 4. In reply, ld.DR vehemently supported orders of Assessing Officer and ld.CIT(A). 5. We have considered rival submissions and perused material available on record. perusal of facts and balance sheet clearly shows that assessee has been able to explain sums credited in his bank account, which is also accepted by Assessing Officer. Only in regard to opening balance of amount of Rs.1,95,969/- is being challenged by Assessing Officer as unexplained cash credit, out of amount of Rs.25,12,359/-. It is accepted fact that assessee has made profits in earlier years and balance sheet, profit and loss account as produced by assessee clearly shows savings. assessee s bank account came to be questioned only on account of cash deposit of Rs.3,37,40,770/- in his bank current account during demonetization drive. No fault in accounts of assessee has been pointed out. This being so, we are of view that claim of assessee for having savings of :- 4 -: ITA No. 2423/chny/2018 Rs.1,95,969/- cannot be faulted and consequently, addition as made by Assessing Officer and confirmed by ld.CIT(A) stands deleted. 6. In result, appeal of assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in open court after conclusion of hearing on 04th September, 2019, at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (S. JAYARAMAN) (GEORGE MATHAN) Accountant Member JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai Dated: 04th September, 2019. K S Sundaram Copy to: 1. /Appellant 4. CIT 2. Respondent 5. 2 DR 3. CIT(A) 6. /GF Meeran Mohideen v. Income-tax Officer, Non-corporate ward-5(5), Chennai