Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘G’ BENCH,
Before: SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, & SHRI KUL BHARAT
PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-
The above captioned four appeals by the assessee are preferred against four separate orders of the ld. CIT(A) - 24, New Delhi dated 09.06.2022 pertaining to Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2018-19 and 2019-20 respectively.
Since the underlying facts in the issues are common and the grievance of the assessee is identical in all the four appeals with different quantum, all these appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity.
The common grievance in all the appeals relates to the addition on account of deposits found in the bank accounts of the assessee.
Facts emanating from the assessment order show that search and seizure action was carried out in Shri Kshitij Lal Group cases on 12.03.2019 and 13.03.2019. Search warrant was also executed in the name of the assessee, pursuant to which, statutory notices were issued and served upon the assessee, who filed return in response to the same.
During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed cash deposits in the bank accounts of the assessee maintained in Dena Bank and State Bank of India. The following cash deposits were found in the respective Assessment Years:
Assessment Year Amount [Rs.]
2013-14 7,04,250/- 2014-15 10 ,00,000/- 2018-19 9,00,000/- 2019-20 1,51,000/-
The assessee was asked to explain the source of cash deposits in the respective Assessment Years.
The assessee furnished reply alongwith bank statements and cash books from Assessment Years 2013-14 to 2019-20 and it was categorically explained that the impugned cash deposits are out of available sources.
The evidences and reply of the assessee were dismissed by the Assessing Officer who was of the firm belief that all the amounts deposited cannot be accepted as out of withdrawals and dismissing the contentions of the assessee, the additions were made in the respective Assessment Years for the impugned cash deposits as mentioned hereinabove.
Assessment order was challenged before the ld. CIT(A) but without any success.
Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee once again drew our attention to the Fund Flow Statement explaining that on each date of cash deposit, there was adequate cash in hand with the assessee and, therefore, the source of cash has been duly explained.
Per contra, the ld. DR strongly supported the findings of the Assessing Officer and vehemently stated that there is no evidence for initial opening cash in hand, which was subsequently used by the assessee for explaining the source of cash deposits.
We have given thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below and have carefully considered the cash flow statement which is as under:
Peak Opening Cash Cash Closing Date Bank Name Credit Balance Withdrawal Deposit Balance Amount - - 01-04-2012 Opening 5,00,000 5,00,000 03-04-2012 SBI 5,00,000 5,20,000 20,000 09-04-2012 SBI 5,20,000 96,000 6,16,000 19-04-2012 SBI 6,16,000 30,000 6,46,000 - 31-05-2012 SBI 6,46,000 3,00,000 3,46,000 29-06-2012 SBI 3,46,000 20,000 3,66,000 03-08-2012 SBI 3,66,000 22,000 3,88,000 03-09-2012 SBI 3,88,000 2,00,000 1,88,000 - - 03-09-2012 Dena bank 1,88,000 49,900 1,38,100 - 03-09-2012 SBI 1,38,100 20,000 1,58,100 - 04-09-2012 Dena bank 1,58,100 49,900 1,08,200 04-09-2012 SBI - 1,08,200 20,000 1,28,200 - 05-09-2012 Dena bank 1,28,200 49,500 78,700 - 06-09-2012 Dena bank 78,700 49,900 28,800 - 07-09-2012 Dena bank 28,800 4,050 24,750 - 01-10-2012 SBI 24,750 75,000 99,750 - 04-10-2012 SBI 99,750 1,10,000 2,09,750 - 17-10-2012 SBI 2,09,750 8,66,000 10,75,750 22-10-2012 SBI 10,75,750 17,000 10,92,750 05-11-2012 SBI 10,92,750 5,000 10,97,750 12-11-2012 SBI 10,97,750 3,500 11,01,250 19-11-2012 SBI 11,01,250 18,000 11,19,250 10-12-2012 SBI 11,19,250 27,000 11,46,250 11-12-2012 SBI 11,46,250 5,000 11,51,250 04-01-2013 SBI 11,51,250 20,000 11,71,250 11-01-2013 SBI 11,71,250 10,000 11,61,250 04-02-2013 SBI 11,61,250 20,000 11,81,250 13,94,500 7,13,250 Nil A.Y 2014-15
Peak Opening Cash Cash Closing Date Bank Name Credit Balance Withdrawal Deposit Balance Amount - 01-04-2013 11,81,250 11,81,250 14-09-2013 SBI 11,81,250 60,000 12,41,250 18-02-2014 SBI 12,41,250 3,50,000 8,91,250 25-02-2014 SBI 8,91,250 1,50,000 7,41,250 13-03-2014 SBI 7,41,250 5,00,000 2,41,250 Total Nil 60,000 10,00,000
Peak Opening Cash Cash Closing Date Bank Name Credit Balance Withdrawal Deposit Balance Amount 01-04-2014 2.41.250 2.41.250 10-07-2014 2.41.250 3.41.250 SBI 1,00,000 _ Nil - 1,00,000 A.Y 2016-17
Peak Opening Cash Cash Closing Date Bank Name Credit Balance Withdrawal Deposit Balance Amount - 01-04-2015 3,41,250 3,41,250 - 31-08-2015 SBI 3,41,250 50,000 3,91,250 21-12-2015 SBI 3,91,250 12,000 4,03,250 SBI 4,03,250 30,000 4,33,250 26-02-2016 29-03-2016 SBI 4,33,250 30,000 4,63,250 - Nil 1,22,000
A.Y 2017-18 Peak Opening Cash Cash Closing Bank Date Credit Name Balance Withdrawal Deposit Balance Amount - 01-04-2016 4,63,250 4,63,250 07-06-2016 SBI 4,63,250 30,000 4,93,250 25-10-2016 SBI 4,93,250 15,000 5,08,250 SBI 5,08,250 2,30,000 2,78,250 11-11-2016 Total 45,000 2,30,000 Nil
A.Y 2018-19 Peak Opening Cash Cash Closing Date Bank Name Credit Balance Withdrawal Deposit Balance Amount - 01-04-2017 2,78,250 2,78,250 30-05-2017 SBI 2,78,250 3,00,000 5,78,250 04-08-2017 SBI 5,78,250 1,50,000 4,28,250 11-08-2017 SBI 4,28,250 4,10,000 8,38,250 23-11-2017 SBI 8,38,250 60,000 8,98,250 15-03-2018 SBI 8,98,250 2,00,000 6,98,250 16-03-2018 SBI 6,98,250 2,00,000 4,98,250 19-03-2018 SBI 4,98,250 2,00,000 2,98,250 20-03-2018 SBI 2,98,250 1,50,000 1,48,250 Total 7,70,000 9,00,000 Nil
Peak Bank Opening Cash Cash Closing Date Nam Credit Balance Withdrawal Deposit Balance e Amount - 01-04-2017 1,48,250 1,48,250 13-04-2018 SBI 1,48,250 1,00,000 48,250 16-04-2018 SBI 48,250 45,000 3,250 10-05-2018 SBI 3,250 20,000 23,250 01-10-2018 SBI 23,250 6,000 29,250 15-11-2018 SBI 29,250 6,000 23,250 Total 1,51,000 Nil 26,000
From the above, it can be seen that on each date of cash deposit, cash was available with the assessee. The Assessing Officer has not pointed out any defect in the aforementioned statements but has simply rubbished them saying that the availability of the cash cannot be accepted as the same must have been used for some other purposes.
We are of the considered view that unless some cogent material evidence is brought on record to show that there were some ceremonial functions in the residence of the assessee in the impugned Assessment Years where the assessee could have used the cash, explanation of the assessee cannot be discarded or brushed aside lightly.
Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of Kulwant Rai 291 ITR 36. The relevant findings of the Hon'ble High Court read as under:
“16. This cash flow statement furnished by the assessed was rejected by the Assessing Officer which is on the basis of suspicion that the assessed must have spent the amount for some other purposes. The orders of Assessing Officer as well as Commissioner of Income Tax are completely silent as to for what purpose the earlier withdrawals would have been spent. As per the cash book maintained by the assessed, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was being spent for household expenses every month and the assessed has withdrawn from bank a sum of Rs. 2 lacs on 4th December, 2000 and there was no material with the Department that this money was not available with the assessed. It has been held by the Tribunal that in the instant case the withdrawals shown by the assessed are far in excess of the cash found during the course of search proceedings. No material has been relied upon by the Assessing Officer or Commissioner Income Tax(A) to support their view that the entire cash withdrawals must have been spent by the assessed and accordingly, the Tribunal rightly held that the assessment of Rs. 2.5 lacs is legally not sustainable under Section 158BC of the Act and the same was rightly ordered to be deleted.”
Considering the totality of facts in light of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi [supra], we do not find any merit in the additions made by the Assessing Officer in the impugned Assessment Years. We, accordingly, direct the Assessing Officer to delete the additions from all the captioned Assessment Years.
The captioned appeals are, accordingly, allowed.
In the result, all the captioned four appeals of the assessee in to 1611/DEL/2022 are allowed. The order is pronounced in the open court on 06.01.2023.