NEELAM GUPTA,JABALPUR vs. I.T.O WARD 1(1), JABALPIR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 66/JAB/2023Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 November 2023AY 2015-165 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal considered the submissions and bank statements, finding that amounts transferred from J.P. Gupta and G.L. Gupta were explained. It also considered a portion of the cash deposits as cash in hand available with the assessee, holding no addition was called for.

What were the facts?

The assessee's case was selected for limited scrutiny to verify derivatives transactions. The Assessing Officer (AO) added Rs. 7,94,000 as unexplained money, finding cash deposits and credit entries in the assessee's bank account without satisfactory explanation. The CIT(A) affirmed this addition.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits and credit entries in the assessee's bank account, used for derivatives trading, constituted unexplained money. Whether the assessee provided a satisfactory explanation for the sources of these funds.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JABALPUR BENCH ‘DB’, JABALPUR

Before: Dr. B. R. R. KumarSh. Yogesh Kumar US

Hearing: 23.11.2023Pronounced: 28.11.2023

Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member:

1.

The present appeal has been filed by assessee against the order of ld.NFAC/CIT(A), New Delhi dated 17.03.2023.

2.

The assesse has raised the following grounds of appeal are as under:-

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law where an appeal is filed before the Tribunal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals)) erred in not considering the reply filed by the assessee and without appreciating the facts as enumerated in the case had dismissed the appeal which is illegal and void.

2 ITA. 66/JAB/2023 Neelam Gupta

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law where an appeal is filed before the Tribunal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 7,94,000.00 u/s 69A which is unwarranted and excessive.

3.

The assesses manually filed ITR declaring total income of Rs.41,350/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS to verify derivatives (Futures) transaction. Accordingly notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were sent by the AO, in response to which father-in-law of assessee attended the proceeding.

4.

The assessee declared her income under the head STCG at Rs. 8,745/- and other miscellaneous income from beauty parlor and interest income at Rs.32,600/- under the head income from other sources. As per the AO, since all the investment/trading in derivatives/shares were made by the assessee from her ICICI Bank bearing A/c No. 07620000189, thus it is necessary to examine the sources of funds for investment or, trading in derivatives.

5.

On examination of the ICICI Bank Account of the assessee, the AO was found that there have been cash deposits on various dates and credit entries also from Sh. Jageshwar Prasad Gupta and other parties, so the assessee was asked to furnish sources of cash deposits and the credit entries from various persons. The assessee expalined the source of the same which has been mentioned in Para 4 of the assessment order, as per the AO the assessee failed to explain the same satisfactorily, therefore AO added the same at Rs. 7,94,000/ -

3 ITA. 66/JAB/2023 Neelam Gupta as unexplained money of the assessee u/s. 69A of the IT Act, 1961.

6.

The Id. CIT(A) affirmed the action of the Assessing Officer.

7.

Aggrieved the assesse filed before the Tribunal.

8.

During the hearing before us, the Id. AR submitted that all the credits are transfer entries from the account of Jageshwar Prasad Gupta who is the father in law and a retired Superintendent Engineer having pension income. All the investment/trading in derivatives/shares were made by the assessee from her ICICI Bank a/c bearing a/c no.- 076201000189. The source of money is from Shri Jageshwar Prasad Gupta. The money was in-turn routed from UBI a/c (a/c no.-586802030000043) to SBI a/c (a/c no.-0170618358) and then to ICICI a/c (a/c no.-076201000189) of the assessee, Smt. Neelam Gupta.

9.

On the other hand, Id. Senior DR supported the order of the authorities below.

10.

Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record.

11.

The submissions of the assessee relating to credit entries (tranfers) is considered and examined.

4 ITA. 66/JAB/2023 Neelam Gupta 12. The details of the cash deposit entries and other credit entries in the bank a/c of the assessee with ICICI bank are tabulated as under:-

S.No Nature of Name of the Amount Deposit/Credit person who had (in Rs.) transferred the money 1 Transfer J.P Gupta 24.03.2015 20,000 2 Transfer J.P Gupta 24.03.2015 15,000 3 Cash -- 02.02.2015 20,000 4 Cash -- 14.01.2015 40,000 5 Cash -- 05.01.2015 12,000 6 Cash -- 20.12.2014 50,000 7 Cash -- 14.01.2015 40,000 8 Cash -- 05.01.2015 12,000 9 Cash -- 20.12.2014 50,000 10 Transfer J.P Gupta 13.11.2014 90,000 11 Transfer J.P Gupta 16.09.2014 70,000 12 Transfer G.L Gupta 22.08.2014 40,000 13 Transfer G.L Gupta 19.08.2014 1,00,000 14 Cash -- 08.07.2014 50,000 15 Transfer J.P Gupta 09.07.2014 45,000 16 Transfer J.P Gupta 18.06.2014 90,000 17 Transfer J.P Gupta 17.05.2014 50,000 Total 7,94,000

13.

A total of Rs. 2,74,000/- and Rs. 5,20,000/ - were deposited in the form of cash and transfer (through cheque/NEFT/RTGS) respectively. Thus, the amounts transferred from Shri J.P Gupta/ G.L Gupta are treated as explained after examination of the bank statement of Shri J.P

5 ITA. 66/JAB/2023 Neelam Gupta Gupta and pension account. Out of the remaining cash deposits items no. 5,6 & 7 are repeated. Hence, keeping in view natural societal norms, the remaining amount of Rs. 1,62,000/ - can be considered as cash in hand available with the assessee.

14.

In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case, we hold that no addition is called for on account cash deposits.

15.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 28/11/2023.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →