What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the AO's findings regarding cash entries in the SB account were not discernible from the provided documents. Therefore, the issues were restored to the AO for re-examination and assimilation of correct facts.

The assessee's appeal was delayed by 77 days. The Assessing Officer (AO) determined the assessee's turnover based on cash deposits in bank accounts, including the savings bank (SB) account. The assessee contended that there were no cash deposits in the SB account and the AO's findings were erroneous.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits in the savings bank account were correctly considered by the AO for determining the assessee's turnover, and if the AO's factual findings were accurate.

Shri Mangilal Mahanta, Keonjhar vs ITO | ITAT Cuttack 2023

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA

Hearing: 28/02/2023Pronounced: 28/02/2023

O R D E R Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, passed in DIN & Oder No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1042805073(1), for the assessment year 2017-2018.

At the outset, it is found that the appeal of the assessee is barred by 77 days. In this regard, an application along with medical certificate has been filed on behalf of the assessee for condonation of delay. Ld. Sr. DR has not objection to condone the delay. In view of the above, the delay of 77 days in filing the present appeal is condoned and the appeal of the assessee is heard finally.

It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee is in the business of poultry and running commercial goods vehicles (pick-up vans etc.) it was the submission that in the course of assessment, the AO had examined the bank account of the assessee and had come to the conclusion that there was cash deposit in the current bank account and the SB account of the assessee. It was the submission that he has determined the consequential turnover of the assessee at Rs.1,27,37,880/-. It was also submitted that the there was no cash deposit in the SB account of the assessee. The ld. AR placed copies of SB account before us. It was the submission that the entries in the SB account also could not be considered for determining the turnover of the assessee. It was further submitted that thought the submissions had been made before the ld. CIT(A), the same was not considered. It was the prayer that the issues be restored to the file of AO for re-examination insofar as there was no cash deposit in the SB account of the assessee.

In reply, Sr. DR submitted that the cash deposit in the current account of the assessee itself was to an extent of Rs.1,27,00,000/-. It was the submission that the AO has estimated the income of the assessee at the same rate as has been disclosed by the assessee but has only enhanced the turnover from that as disclosed by the assessee to the turnover as determined by the AO from the bank account of the assessee. It was the submission that even excluding the SB account of the assessee the current account itself have been shown at Rs.1,27,37,880/-, therefore, the assessment order is liable to be upheld. It was also the submission that the order of the ld. CIT(A) deserves to be upheld.

We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the assessment order shows that the AO has arrived at a figure of

SHRI MANGILAL MAHANTA,KEONJHAR vs. ITO,KEONJHAR WARD, KEONJHAR

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments