ASHIM KUMAR SINHA,RAMGARH vs. ITO WARD-2(3), RAMGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 31/RAN/2018Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi03 March 20202 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs.3,07,600/-. The assessee failed to provide returns for preceding years to support the claim of an opening cash balance, a reasoning also adopted by the lower appellate authority.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged the CIT(A)'s order which partly deleted an addition of Rs.9,07,600/- related to unexplained cash credits. The CIT(A) had allowed a deletion of Rs.6,00,000/- based on an exempt income limit.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of the addition of unexplained cash credits and the assessee's claim regarding opening cash balance without supporting documentation.

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: Smt. Nisha Singhmarr, JCIT(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 2014-15 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Hazaribag, Jharkhand dated 27.09.2017 passed in case no.10081/HZB/2016-17 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 sole substantive grievance raised in the instant appeal challenges correctness of the CIT(A)’s action partly deleting unexplained cash credits addition of Rs.9,07,600/- to the extent of Rs.6,00,000/- only since going by the past four years’ exempt income limit of Rs.1.5 lakhs each. Learned counsel’s case is that assessee’s balance sheet as on 01.04.2013 itself shows opening balance of Rs.9,91,145/-. I find that this assessee had not filed any return of income for the preceding four assessment years which could support the claim of foregoing opening cash balance. The same appears to be the reasoning adopted Ashim Kumar Sinha, Ramgarh in the lower appellate authority’ order as well. I thus affirm the impugned addition of Rs.3,07,600/- made in the course of assessment and uphold the CIT(A)’s order.

3.

This assessee’s appeal is dismissed.

Order is pronounced in the open court on 03.03.2020.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →