HALIM AHMAD,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(2), JAMSHEDPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 141/RAN/2018Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi03 March 20202 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that in such circumstances, the presumption is that cash deposits form part of the turnover. Following a coordinate bench's decision, the impugned addition was deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns an addition of Rs. 20,87,047/- made by the lower authorities as unexplained cash credits out of total cash deposits of Rs. 87,49,275/-. The assessee's total turnover for the year was Rs. 1,19,41,795/-.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the cash deposits made by the assessee could be treated as unexplained cash credits or if they should be presumed to be part of the business turnover.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, : RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI

Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar, Addl. CIT(DR)
Hearing: 03.03.2020Pronounced: 03.03.2020

Date of hearing 03.03.2020 Date of pronouncement 03.03.2020 O R D E R S. S. Godara(Oral): This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2011-12 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jamshedpur dated 15.02.2017 passed in case no.01/JSR/2014-15 involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

The assessee’s only grievance raised in the instant appeal seeks to reverse the lower authorities’ action adding bank credits amount of Rs.20,87,047/- out of his total cash deposits amounting to Rs.87,49,275/- as unexplained cash credits. Suffice to say, it transpires that the assessee’s total turnover in the relevant previous year comes to Rs.1,19,41,795/- as against cash deposits of Rs.87,49,275/-. This tribunal’s coordinate bench’s decision in Sri Prashant Kumar Singh vs. ITO dated 27.11.17 holds that necessary presumption in such an instance is that of cash deposits forming part of the turnover only. I adopt the foregoing reasoning mutatis mutandis and I.T.A No.141/Ran/2018 Halim Ahmad delete the impugned addition of Rs.206047/-. The Revenue’s arguments supporting the impugned addition are declined therefore.

3.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed.

Order is pronounced in the open court on 03.03.2020.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →