Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES “A”, JAIPUR
Before: SHRI RAMESH C SHARMA, AM & SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1010/JP/2018
ORDER PER: R.C. SHARMA, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld.CIT(A)-3, Jaipur dated 28/02/2018 for the A.Y. 2013-14 in the matter of order passed U/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act). In this appeal, the assessee is aggrieved for addition of Rs. 1,53,000/- on account of cash deposit in the bank account.
There is delay in filing the appeal. In support of the delay, the assessee has filed reasons in the form of affidavit. After going through
2 ITA 1010/JP/2018_ Ramawtar Meena Vs ITO the reasons, we are satisfied that there was reasonable ground for delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the delay is condoned and appeal is being heard on merit.
Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. During the assessment proceedings, the A.O. observed that there is a cash deposit of Rs. 4,03,000/- in IOB account on 17/05/2012, in respect of same he allowed the credit of the lump sum withdrawal of Rs. 2,50,000/- being made from Jaipur Thar Gramin bank. The assessee has explained the difference in cash deposit out of his withdrawal from his bank account and past savings. However, the A.O. did not agree and made the addition of Rs.1,53,000/- (4,03,000-2,50,000/-). By the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the A.O., against which, the assessee is in further appeal before the ITAT.
We have considered the rival contentions and carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below and found that the assessee is a salaried person and is employed with the Central Excise Department from the past 20 years. Moreover, the assessee along with his family members owns 6.62 hectares agricultural land. The jamabandi is at PB 24 of paper book. The Ld. CIT(A) has not accepted the contention of the assessee only for the reason that the assessee has not produced any 3 ITA 1010/JP/2018_ Ramawtar Meena Vs ITO document to show that he has agricultural income whereas it is a fact on record that the assessee and his two brothers own 6.62 hectares of agricultural land.
From the record we found that the assessee has availability of cash of Rs. 43,000/- out of withdrawal from SBI account in the month of March and April, 2012 which the A.O. has not given credit while working out shortfall in cash deposited. After considering Rs. 43,000/- there remains the difference of Rs. 1,10,000/-. Considering the fact that the assessee was employee of Central Excise department since last 20 years and also having a small income from his agricultural land, therefore, we can reasonable consider savings of Rs. 75,000/- out of such income. Accordingly, after giving credit of Rs. 75,000/-, we confirm the addition to the extent of Rs. 35,000/-.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part. Order pronounced in the open court on 20th June, 2019.