RAM SAGAR PANDEY,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(3), LUCKNOW

PDF · subscribers
ITA 131/LKW/2020Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 August 2021AY 2016-173 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits of Rs. 2,20,000 were fully explained by the substantial cash withdrawals made by the assessee in the immediately preceding month. Therefore, the addition was deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerned an addition of Rs. 2,20,000 made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of cash deposits in the assessee's bank account. The AO had passed an ex-parte order, and the assessee claimed illness prevented their appearance.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits in a bank account are sufficiently explained by prior cash withdrawals from the same account, especially when the AO passed an ex-parte order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 133(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH ‘SMC’, LUCKNOW

Before: SHRI T. S. KAPOOR

For Appellant: Shri Devashish Mehrotra, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R
Hearing: 17/08/2021Pronounced: 25/08/2021

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of learned CIT(A)-1, Lucknow dated 12/12/2019 pertaining to assessment year 2016- 2017.

2.

The assessee has taken various grounds of appeal however, the crux of grounds of appeal is the action of learned CIT(A) by which he has confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.2,20,000/- which he had made on account of the fact that the assessee had deposited this amount in cash in his bank account.

3. Learned counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that the Assessing Officer has passed the order u/s 144 of the Act and similarly the learned CIT(A) has passed the order ex-party qua assessee and the reason for not appearing of the assessee before the authorities below is that the assessee was seriously ill and in this respect filed copies of medical certificates. As regards the addition, Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer had made the addition by holding that cash of Rs.2,20,000/- was deposited by the assessee into his bank account in cash. It was submitted that the Assessing Officer had obtained copy of bank account from the bank by issuing summons u/s 133(6) of the Act but while relying on such statements has overlooked the cash of Rs.13,65,000/- withdrawn by the assessee from the same bank account in the immediate preceding month and in this respect invited our attention to the copy of such bank account. Therefore, it was submitted that the deposit of cash of Rs.2,20,000/- is fully explained by the withdrawals in the immediate preceding month and, therefore, it was prayed that the appeal of the assessee may be allowed.

4.

Learned D. R., on the other hand, submitted that both the authorities below have passed the ex-parte order and, therefore, the case may be set aside to the Assessing Officer for his fresh adjudication.

5.

Learned counsel for the assessee, in the rejoinder, submitted that the assessee is an old man and is still suffering from the disease and since the bank account statement was available with the Assessing Officer and he has just ignored it therefore, no useful purpose will be served and it was prayed that in the interest of justice the appeal of the assessee may be decided here itself as the entire material is available for arriving at the decision.

6.

I have heard the rival parties and have gone through the material placed on record. I find that the Assessing Officer had made the addition by calling information from the bank which provided a copy of bank statement of the assessee. While going through the copy of bank account, I observe that assessee had withdrawn Rs.5,00,000/- on 16/04/2015, Rs.4,00,000/- on 17/04/2015, Rs.4,20,000/- on 20/04/2015 and had deposited Rs.2,00,000/- on 01/05/2015 and Rs.20,000/- on 05/06/2015. The deposits of Rs.2,20,000/- made on 01/05/2015 and 05/06/2015 are fully explainable from the withdrawals made by the assessee in the immediate preceding month. Therefore, the addition sustained by learned CIT(A) is deleted.

7.

As regards the argument of Learned D. R. that the case may be set aside to the Assessing Officer as both authorities have passed ex-parte order, I find that no useful purpose will be achieved by setting aside the matter back to the Assessing Officer as Assessing Officer already had the copy of bank statement which clearly demonstrates that the deposits were duly explainable and keeping in view the fact that the assessee is an old person and is seriously ill, I allow the appeal of the assessee and delete the addition.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed. (Order pronounced in the open court on 25/08/2021)

Sd/. ( T. S. KAPOOR ) Accountant Member Dated:25/08/2021 *Singh Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. Concerned CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., Lucknow

More judgments on Section 133(6)

All 7,227 judgments and leading authorities on Section 133(6) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →