SRI ANUP ANMOL KUJUR,RANCHI vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), RANCHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 38/RAN/2022Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 April 20233 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the deposits could be presumed to be out of current income and past savings, especially during demonetization. Therefore, the addition sustained by the CIT(A) was directed to be deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee deposited Rs. 10,50,000/- in cash into various bank accounts during the demonetization period. The Assessing Officer (AO) added the entire amount to the assessee's income as no explanation was provided. The CIT(A) partly confirmed the addition, deleting Rs. 6,55,973/-.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits made during demonetization, claimed to be out of past savings, can be added to income without proper explanation. The extent to which such deposits can be explained by disclosed income and past savings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 143(1),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH: RANCHI

Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

This is the appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)- NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] dated 30.03.2022 for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. The assessee has assailed the order of Ld. CIT(A) for partly confirming the addition to the tune of Rs. 3,94,027/- as against the addition of Rs. 10,50,000/- made

3.

Facts in brief are that the assessee has filed return of income on 18.03.2019 declaring total income of Rs. 3,86,450/- which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS forlarge value cash deposits during demonetization period and accordingly statutory notices were duly issued and served to the assessee. The AO noticed that the assesse has deposited Rs. 10,50,000/- into four bank accounts : Corporation Bank, HazaribaghRs. 2,50,000/-, State Bank of India, Rajendra Medical College Campus, Ranchi Rs. 2,49,000/-, Central Bank of India Rs. 2,57,000/- and Indian Overseas Bank, Purulia Road, Ranchi Rs. 2,49,000/- aggregating to Rs. 10,50,000/- The assessee did not give any explanation before the AO despite issuing notice to the assesseeto explain the same and consequently the AO added the entire deposits to the income of the assesse in the assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 18.11.2019.

4.

In the appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted before the ld CIT(A) that the assessee has shown in the return of income a cash balance of Rs. 6,55,973/- in AY 2016-17and during AY 2017-18 the assessee has shown income of Rs. 3,86,448/- as per ITR filed. The assessee claimed before the Ld. CIT(A) that the said cash deposits were out of cash accumulated out of savings over the years. The assesse also filed a cash flowwhich was extracted by the Ld. CIT(A) on page 3 of the appellate order. Finally the Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by deleting the addition to the tune of Rs. 6,55,9743/- while the balance addition of Rs. 3,94,027/- was sustained.

5.

After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material available on record, we note that the assessee is being regularly assessed to income tax. We have also examined the cash flow tally and find that the deposits were made were out of cash in hand of Rs. 10,50,000/- which was fully explained out of the past savings which was partly accepted by the Ld. CIT(A) and deleted the addition to the extent of Rs. 6,55,973/-. In our opinion, during the year the assessee has returned income of Rs.

3 AY: 2017-18 Sri Anup Anmol Kujur 3,86,448/- so the deposit can reasonably be presumed to be out of current income besides the possibility of having money other than the personal saving which are normally not disclosed in the return of income always and thus that possibility cannot be ruled out. In the time of demonetization the people whohad keptand accumulated money out of past savings in cash and deposited after the said demonetization had no option but to bank the cash. In the case of assesse also the deposits seem to be out of the personal income and savings and accordingly we modify the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order is pronounced in the open court on 5th April, 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 →