SUDHAKAR KASHINATHRAO BIRADAR,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 8(1), PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1738/PUN/2018Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 January 2020AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanations were not properly discussed and that there was evidence of a business with labour charges. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 25,50,000/- under Section 68 for unexplained cash deposits. The assessee's explanations before the CIT(A) were not fully considered, and the CIT(A) confirmed the addition, viewing it as accommodation entries.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee's explanations for cash deposits were adequately considered and whether a business existed to justify the income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 144,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE

Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM

For Appellant: Shri Pratik Navlakha
Hearing: 20.12.2019Pronounced: 15.01.2020

ORDER

PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM:

1.

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A)-6, Pune dated 07.09.2018 for the assessment year 2013-14.

2.

Before me, at the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that this case needs to re-visit to the file of the Assessing Officer. Explaining the facts, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that this is case where the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.25,50,000/- u/s 68 of the Act on account of unexplained cash deposits and finalized the assessment u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act. The Assessing Officer noted that the said cash deposits found in the bank account of the assessee maintained with M/s. Annasaheb Magar Co-op. Bank Ltd., Bhosari Branch, Pune. Further, the -2- Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of section 68 of the Act after granting reasonable opportunities to the assessee, which were not availed by the assessee in its true spirit. The CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer after granting number of opportunity. Before the CIT(A), the assessee tried to explain the sources of the said cash deposits, which were not dismissed by the CIT(A) holding that this is a case of providing the accommodation entries by depositing the said cash. The contents of para 4.2.2 of the CIT(A)’s order are relevant in this regard. 3. On hearing both the parties on this limited issue, I proceed to examine the request of the assessee for remanding the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication and if the same is appropriate or not. On perusal of para 4.2.2 of the CIT(A)’s order, I am of the opinion that the explanations given by the assessee before the CIT(A) were not made part of the discussion before the assessee’s appeal is dismissed. I also considered the facts that there is a dispute about the existence of the business. The Revenue is of the opinion that no such business exists despite the fact that there is a claim of earning of receipts on the labour charges received to the tune of Rs.26,00,660/-. I also perused the contents of page 34 of the Paper Book relating to the labour expenses and other expenses of Rs.1,64,457/- which are debited to profit or loss account for the year under consideration. On perusal of the same, it is an inescapable inference that there exits a business and the assessee earned income of Rs.25,13,860/- from labour charges account and also incurred direct expenses of Rs.1,64,457/-. Considering the above undisputed fact, I am of

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →