MR. MRITUNJAY KUMAR NIRALA,AURANGABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(3), AURANGABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 347/PAT/2018Status: DisposedITAT Patna16 September 2020AY 2015-163 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide necessary evidence to support his claim regarding the source of the cash deposits during assessment or before the CIT(A). The Tribunal confirmed the addition made by the lower authorities.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged the addition of Rs. 30,57,000/- in cash deposits to his bank account as unexplained. He argued that the CIT(A) order was ex parte and he could prove the source was outstanding dues from BSFC.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits in a bank account can be added as unexplained income under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act when the assessee fails to provide supporting evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PATNA ‘VIRTUAL COURT’AT KOLKATA

Before: Shri S.S. Godara, JM & Dr. A. L. Saini, AM

आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench(Oral): This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2015-16 arises against the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Patna’s order dated 12.09.2018 passed in case No.CIT(A), Patna-1/10167/2017-18 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 challenges correctness of both the lower authorities’ action adding cash deposits made in ICICI Bank account to the tune of Rs.30,57,000/- as unexplained u/s 68 of the Act. Learned authorised representative fails to dispute that the assessee could not explain the source thereof during the course of assessment. He seeks to pinpoint the fact that the CIT(A)’s order affirming the impugned addition has been passed ex parte and therefore, the issue deserves to be restored back as the assessee would be able to prove that the amount in question as belonging to the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation’s (“BSFC”) outstanding dues against supply of paddy in the taxpayer proprietary business under the name and style of M/s Jai Maa Modern Mini Rice Mill.

1.

3. We find no merit in assessee’s foregoing plea. The fact remains that if we ignore the CIT(A)’s technical reason of having passed his lower appellate order ex parte, it was very much incumbent for the assessee to file the necessary details pertaining to business dealings of M/s Jai Maa Modern Mini Rice Mills (supra) with “BSFC” by way of cogent evidence which was not done in the course of assessment as well as in Form 35 pleadings raised before the CIT(A) forming part of the case records. The said bank accrual also appears to have not been disclosed at assessee’s behest. We thus reject the assessee’s above-stated arguments and confirm both the lower authorities’ action making the impugned addition.

3.

This assessee’s appeal is dismissed.

Order pronounced in open court at the time of hearing on 16/09/2020.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →