M/S. SRI BALAJI CONSTRUCTIONS,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2), VISAKHAPATNAM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 626/VIZ/2019Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam03 March 2021AY 2013-20144 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found no material to contradict the CIT(A)'s conclusion that while the assessee discharged the onus for Rs. 5.00 lakhs, they failed to satisfactorily explain the transaction of Rs. 2.00 lakhs. Therefore, the partial confirmation of the addition was upheld.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 7.00 lakhs on account of cash deposits in the assessee's bank account, treating it as a loan from a person who could not explain the source. The CIT(A) confirmed an addition of Rs. 2.00 lakhs, accepting the explanation for Rs. 5.00 lakhs.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee had adequately explained the source of a Rs. 2.00 lakh cash deposit, despite explaining a larger portion of the deposit.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM

Before: SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY, HON’BLE & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, HONBLE

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, FCA
For Respondent: Shri B.Satyanarayana Raju, Sr.DR
Hearing: 17/02/2021

O R D E R PER N.K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 30/08/2019 impugned herein passed by the ld.CIT(A)-1, Visakhapatnam u/sec. 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act") for the A.Y. 2013-14.

2.

The assessee has raised the following amended grounds of appeal:- “1. The orders passed u/sec. 143(3) of the I.T. Act are against the facts of the case and provisions of law.

2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals (in short „CIT(A)‟) having accepted cash deposits in assessee‟s bank to the extent of Rs. 5,00,000/- ought to have accepted the remaining of Rs. 2,00,000/- when the facts are similar and also is supported by credible evidence.

3. For these and other reasons that are to be urged at the time of hearing of the case the appellant prays that the orders passed by the ld. CIT(A) are to be quashed in the interest of justice.”

3.

In this case, the assessee is only aggrieved against the partly confirmation of addition to the tune of Rs. 2.00 lakhs u/sec. 68 of the Act by the ld. CIT(A). The AO made the addition of Rs.7.00 lakhs which was deposited by the assessee in his bank account in two transactions on 11/09/2012 (Rs. 5.00 lakhs) and 12/11/2012 (Rs. 2.00 lakhs). The AO has held that the said amount was credited as a loan from A. Satyanarayana, however, the said person could not explain the source for the same.

4.

In appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee had discharged his onus on account of identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the credit and also explained the source of credit from which it was observed by the ld. CIT(A) that the assessee has also repaid Rs.5.00 lakhs against the loan of Rs. 7.00 lakhs. However, the ld.CIT(A) ultimately held that the assessee failed to explain satisfactory qua transaction of Rs. 2.00 lakhs, hence, addition to the extent of Rs. 2.00 lakhs was confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) against the addition of Rs. 7.00 lakhs.

5.

Heard the parties and perused the material available on record. The assessee has claimed that the ld. CIT(A) having accepted the cash deposits in assessee’s bank to the extent of Rs.5.00 lakhs and therefore ought to have accepted the remaining amount of Rs. 2.00 lakhs on the basis of similar facts and circumstances.

6.

On the contrary, ld.DR refuted the claim of the assessee and supported the order of the ld. CIT(A).

7.

We realise that the ld. CIT(A) while passing the impugned order thoroughly gone into the details of the amount deposited by the assessee in his bank account and came to a conclusion as it can be seen from the record that the assessee had discharged his onus qua identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the credit. The ld. CIT(A) further held that the assessee has already repaid Rs. 5.00 lakhs against the loan of Rs. 7.00 lakhs, however, failed to explain the transaction of Rs. 2.00 lakhs and therefore in the peculiar facts and circumstances affirmed the partly addition of Rs.2.00 lakhs only. We could not find any material and/or circumstances contrary to the conclusion/observation of the ld.CIT(A), hence, are inclined to dismiss the appeal of the assessee. Consequently, the order under challenge is liable to be affirmed and accordingly we do so.

8.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed. Order Pronounced in open Court on this 03rd day of March, 2021.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →