SHAHEEDUL HASAN,SURAT vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 61, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 637/KOL/2022Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 January 2023AY 2014-20153 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for the cash deposit to be reasonable, considering the quantum of the addition and the facts on record. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee deposited Rs. 1,50,000/- in their ICICI bank account, claiming it was out of a prior cash withdrawal for a property deal that did not materialize. The Assessing Officer (AO) added this amount under Section 69, as the source of the deposit was not accepted.

What were the issues?

Whether the cash deposits in the assessee's bank account were satisfactorily explained, and if not, whether they could be added as income under Section 69.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH: KOLKATA

Before: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

ORDER / आदेश Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:

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 the Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 16.09.2022 for the AY 2014-15.

2.

The only issue raised by the assessee before us is against the part confirmation of addition of Rs.1,50,000/- by Ld. CIT(A) as against the addition made by the AO of Rs. 3,00,000/- on account of cash deposits in to accounts with ICICI bank.

3.

Facts in brief are that the assessee is deriving income from salary and also carrying on the transactions in securities in F & O segment through stock exchange.

The assessee filed return of income disclosing total income of Rs. 4,98,190/- on 15.05.2015. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were duly issued and served on the assessee. The AO during the course of assessment proceedings found that the assessee has deposited Rs. 1,50,000/- in account no. 018891993456 with ICICI Bank which was stated by the assessee to be deposited out of withdrawal made on 06.04.2012 for buying some property. The assessee submitted that the deal did not materialize and the cash was re-deposited in the account between 10.04.2013 and 06.05.2013. However the contentions was not accepted by the AO and Rs. 1,50,000/- was added u/s 69 of the Act. The AO also noted that during the assessment proceedings that in account no. 057901001240 which was a joint account with the assessee’s wife with first name of assessee’s wife, the assessee has deposited Rs. 1,50,000/- from 10.04.2013 to 06.05.2013 and the same was also added by the AO u/s 69 of the Act.

4.

In the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 1,50,000/- which was in respect of a joint account on the ground that first name in the bank account was that of his wife ,however sustained the addition to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000/- which was on account of cash deposits in assessee’s account and thus partly allowed the appeal of the assessee.

5.

Before us, the assessee did not appear to argue the case personally or through authorized representative therefore we are deciding and disposing off the appeal after examining the facts on record with the assistance of the Ld. D.R. We find that undisputedly assessee has withdrawn Rs. 5,00,000/- on 06.04.2012 by way of cash withdrawal from the bank and the source of cash deposits was stated to be out of the said withdrawal as the purpose for which the withdrawal was made, could not be materialized. Considering the quantum of addition and the explanation of the assessee and the facts before us, we are of the view that the explanation of the assessee appears to be reasonable and deserves to be accepted. Accordingly we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to delete the addition.

Order is pronounced in the open court on 17th January, 2023

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →