SHRI NARENDRAKUMAR BHUPENDRABHAI PATEL,MEHSANA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NOW WARD-4, PATAN
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal deleted the additions related to reconciliation differences in bank balances, considering the assessee's explanation broadly satisfactory given the nature of business and turnover. For cash deposits, the Tribunal directed the AO to estimate income at 5%.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer (AO) added Rs. 15,22,231/- to the assessee's income due to differences in closing bank balances and unexplained cash deposits. The assessee, a proprietor of Nokia Electronics, argued that the balance sheet was based on incomplete accounts and that the deposits were recycled in business.
What were the issues?
Whether the additions made by the AO on account of bank balance differences and unexplained cash deposits are justified, considering the assessee's business and accounting practices.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA
आदेश/O R D E R
PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - AM:
The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Gandhinagar (‘CIT(A)’ in short), dated 26.10.2015 arising in the assessment order dated 31.12.2013 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO)
[Narendrakumar B. Patel vs. ITO] A.Y. 2011-12 - 2 - under s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AY 2011-12.
The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee read as under:
“1. Learned CIT (A) has erred in law & facts in confirming addition of Rs. 2,11,513/- made by A.O. in respect of negative differences in closing bank balances in Market yard commercial co-op, bank and balances sheet in consequence of debit balance (Negative balance) in bank statement.
2. Learned CIT (A) has erred in law & facts by confirming addition of Rs. 20,618/- made by A.O.in respect of differences in closing balances in Oriental bank of commerce current accounts.
3. Learned CIT (A) has erred in law & facts by confirming addition of Rs. 6,80,000/- made by A.O. in respect of peak balances of cash deposit in saving bank account of Oriental bank of commerce on the basis of remand report of A.O and erred by not considering the facts in personal books of accounts produced as additional evidence.
4. Learned CIT (A) has erred in law & facts by confirming addition of Rs. 6,10,000/- made by A.O. in respect of wrongly computed peak balances of current account of Oriental bank of commerce on the basis of remand report of A.O and erred by not considering the facts in personal books of accounts produced as additional evidence.”
The assessee, a proprietor of Nokia Electronics, filed his return of income for AY 2011-12 declaring total income of Rs.1,64,460/-. The return filed by the assessee was subjected to scrutiny assessment. In the course of scrutiny assessment, the AO observed that closing bank balance in the balance sheet of Nokia Electronics did not match with the closing balance in the various bank statements of the proprietary concern. The AO found difference of Rs.20,618/- in the bank balance of Oriental Bank of Commerce (OBC) and Rs.2,11,513/- in Market Yard Commercial Co- operative Bank. The AO also found that certain cash deposits amounting to Rs.6,80,000/- in the saving bank account of OBC in individual name and Rs.6,10,000/- in current account of OBC. The AO did not find the explanation towards such differences and deposits to be satisfactory and accordingly added the aggregate amount of Rs.15,22,231/- on account of such differences and deposits. [Narendrakumar B. Patel vs. ITO] A.Y. 2011-12 - 3 -
Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) without any success.
Further aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal.
We have heard the rival submissions on the reconciliation of differences in the bank account and unexplained cash deposits. As pointed out on behalf of the assessee, we note that assessee is a small trader of electronics items. The balance sheet submitted in the course of assessment proceedings were based on incomplete accounts and admittedly many bank transactions were not incorporated resulting in reconciliation differences. The assessee is stated to have recast the books of accounts incorporating all the entries and filed the same before the Revenue authorities. According to the newly constructed balance sheet (placed in paper book), the capital account of the assessee stands at a meager amount of Rs.1,65,010/- only. The total resources including the liability stands at Rs.3,80,330/-. The assessee has claimed that it is engaged in the fringe business of purchase and sale of old television sets and the amount deposited have been regularly withdrawn from time-to-time and recycled in the business. The aforesaid submission of the assessee appears correct from the summery of the cash statement showing deposits and withdrawals in the bank. The differences in the bank statement has been also reconciled before the CIT(A). The assessee has also pointed out such facts to the AO in the remand proceedings. Having regard to the meager turnover of less than Rs.40 Lakhs, the assessee is not expected to maintain regular books of accounts under the presumptive taxation scheme prescribed in Section 44AD of the Act. It is also noticed that assessee claims to have submitted copy of sales register, purchase register and quantitative details before the CIT(A). In such circumstances and having regard to the smallness of the transaction, the explanation offered by the assessee is considered to be broadly satisfactory. Therefore, the addition on account of reconciliation differences amounting to Rs.2,11,513/- and Rs.20,618/- stands deleted. As regards cash deposits of Rs.6,80,000/- and Rs.6,10,000/-, we direct the AO to estimate income applying 5% thereon in tune with Section 44AF of the [Narendrakumar B. Patel vs. ITO] A.Y. 2011-12 - 4 - Act. The addition of Rs.64,500/- is thus sustained and remaining addition stands deleted.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
This Order pronounced in Open Court on 11/09/2019
Sd/- Sd/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad: Dated 11/09/2019 True Copy S. K. SINHA आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. राज�व / Revenue 2. आवेदक / Assessee 3. संबं�धत आयकर आयु�त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�त- अपील / CIT (A) 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड� फाइल / Guard file. By order/आदेश से,
उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद ।
More judgments on Section 44AD
- Mohammed Javed Bhati, Sikar vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, SikarITA 994/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Rangoli Hotel, Mehsana vs DCIT, Circle, Gandhinagar, GandhiangarITA 2286/AHD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Sonu Jain, Agra vs ITO WD(1)(1)(2), AgraITA 671/AGR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Sarvjeet Singh Through Legal Heir Manjit… vs ITO Ward 1(1), AlwarITA 355/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ganesh Trimbak Saraf And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra And AnotherBombay · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vajram Infra Material Industries vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Tyre Center vs. The Superintendent Of CGSTAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026