Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD – BENCH ‘SMC’
Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & SHRI PRADIPKUMAR KEDIA
-आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद �यायपीठ - अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD – BENCH ‘SMC’
BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIPKUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.3471/Ahd/2016 �नधा�रण वष�/Asstt. Year: 2008-09 Shri Pravinbhai Girdharbhai Patel Vs. ITO, Ward-3 79/248/253, Hanuman vas Patan. Vilalge-Virta Dist. Mehsana 3894 001. PAN : AKMPP 1380 N
(Applicant) (Respondent)
Assessee by : Shri Pritesh Shah, AR Revenue by : Shri Aiotya Shukla, Sr.DR सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 07/03/2019 घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement: 25 /03/2019 आदेश/O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against order of the ld.CIT(A), Gandhinagar dated 29.11.2016 passed for the Asstt.Year 2008-09.
Solitary grievance of the assessee is that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs.11,67,269/- which was added by the AO on account of unexplained cash deposit in the bank account.
ITA No.3471/Ahd/2016 2 3. Brief facts of the case are that the ld.AO got information that the assessee has deposited a sum of Rs.20,63,898/- in cash in his saving bank account during the accounting year relevant to the Asstt.Year 2008-09. The assessee has not been filing return of income. Therefore, he took cognizance of section 148 of the Income Tax Act and issued notice to the assessee. In response to the notice of the AO, the assessee did not appear before the AO. In an ex parte order the ld.AO observed that cash was deposited on 15 occasions and since the assessee failed to explain the source of such deposits, he made addition of Rs.11,67,269/-. On appeal, the ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the addition by recording the following finding: “4.3 I have considered the facts of the case, assessment - order, submission made by the appellant and also the case laws relied upon by appellant. Appellant has not filed any source evidence at the time of assessment proceedings for the deposits made in his bank account held with Mehsana Urban Co-op, Bank Ltd on various dates between 9/4/2007 to 18/2/2008. Now, during the course of appellate proceedings AR of the appellant submitted before ma provisional cash book and summary of . of funds along with copy of bank statement. During the appellate proceedings, AR was specifically asked about the source and evidence of shown in the summary of source, submitted. The AR of the appellant submitted the source of funds deposited of Rs.7,00,949/- out of bank withdrawal of Rs.3,37,000/- out of current year, income of Rs.1,38,999/- and past saving of Rs.2,24,950/-. Similarly, source .of deposit of Rs.3,31,000/- claimed to have been deposited obtained from appellant's wife. AR of the appellant was asked to produce the source of, bank entries shown clearance of Rs.43,322/-, Rs.42,880/- Rs.28,851/- and Rs.20,267/- which were considered by AO as cash deposits. But AR was not in a position to produce the source of these entries. Further, AR was also asked to produce the source of past income out of which savings •of Rs.2,24,950/- and Rs.1,77,000/- had been claimed by appellant in his case and his wife case. The AR of the appellant has not submitted the proof of past income in both
ITA No.3471/Ahd/2016 3 the cases and it was also ascertained that ^appellant and his wife are not assessed to tax in earlier years. Hence, there is no claim of such savings without earning of legitimate income. Appellant has also claimed Rs.1,38,999/- and Rs.1,54,000/- as current income in the case of the appellant and his wife out of which cash was deposited. However, no books of accounts and the mode of business disclosed during the appellate proceedings. Hence, the contentions made by the appellant do not help him.
Considering the above facts, the claim of the appellant cannot be accepted without evidences and the addition made by the AO of Rs.11,67,270/- is held justified and is hereby confirmed.”
With the assistance of the ld.representatives, we have gone through the record carefully. Section 68 of the Income Tax Act contemplates that where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof, or the explanation offered by the assessee is not, in the opinion of the AO satisfactory, then the sum so credited in the accounts may be treated as income of the assessee of that previous year.
During the course of hearing, the ld.cousnel for the assessee was unable to point out source from where these amounts were deposited in the bank. He has just tabulated certain details from the bank statements and took us through pages 38 and 39 of the paper book. The details compiled by the ld.counsel for the assessee on page no.39 and 40 are perused. We would like to make reference to the relevant details of this page, which read as under: Pravinbhai Girdharbhai Patel Assessment Year : 2008/09 - Financial Year : 01/04/2007 to 31/03/2008. Cash Deposited to Bank with Source Thereof
ITA No.3471/Ahd/2016 4
Name of The Mehsana Urben Co-operative Bank Limited Saving Bank A/c No Bank 00041001006652 Date Source Amount of Cash Deposit to Bank Particulars Date Amount Rs. Cheque Amount No. Rs. 25/06/2007 200000 10000 14/03/2007. 184000 10000 Cash withdrawan from this Bank 25000 20/03/2007. 188431 25000
25000 21/03/2007. 188432 25000
10000 28/03/2007. 188433 10000
105000 29/03/2007. 180925 105000
10000 11/04/2007. 10000
10000 17/04/2007. 10000
5000 18/04/2007. 136803 5000 67000
17/08/2007. 99999 62000 Cash 62000 withdrawan from this Bank 37999 18/05/2007. 183664 37999 50000 Cash withdrawan from this Bank 20/08/2007. 99000 12001 12001 Cash withdrawan from this Bank 56999 56999 Out of Current Year's Income 30000 30000 Deposited by Wife out of Her Income 21/08/2007. 49000 25000 21/08/2007. 107353 25000 Cash withdrawan from this Bank
24000 24000 Deposited by Wife out of Her Income
ITA No.3471/Ahd/2016 5 07/01/2008. 177000 99950 Deposited by - 99950 Wife out of Her Past Savings 77050 Deposited by 77050 Wife out of Her past savings 23/01/2008. 99950 Deposited by 99950 assessee out of his past savings 28/01/2008. 125000 Deposited by 125000 assessee out of his past savings 01/02/2008. 32000 Out of - 32000 Current Year's Income 13/02/2008. 50000 Out of - 50000 Current Year's Income 15/02/2008. 40000 Deposited by - - 40000 Wife out of her current year's income. 18/02/2008. 60000 Deposited by 60000 assessee out of his past savings Cash Inflow Out of Which Cash Deposited to 1031949 Bank > > 1031949 < < < Cash Deposited to Bank
A perusal of the above would indicate that on certain occasions, the assessee has withdrawn substantial cash viz. on 29.3.2007 he has withdrawn Rs.1,05,000/-; similarly on 20.3.2007 he has withdrawn Rs.25,000/-, and again on 21.3.2007 he withdrew an amount of Rs.25,000/-. Thus, out of this withdrawal, some amount must be available with the assessee, which can be used for re-deposits. He has also withdrawn Rs.62,000/- on 18.4.2007. The question is, whether it is probable
ITA No.3471/Ahd/2016 6 that out of these withdrawals some amounts remained with the assessee, which can be re-deposited after two-three months. To our mind, it is probable when the assessee does not belong to an organized sector of business. His total deposits in a year not exceeded more than Rs.20,0000/-. Therefore, considering total withdrawals at different intervals tabulated in details, we are of the view that at least some credit be given to the assessee out of the major withdrawals. He could able to save something from them for re-depositing. Considering all the aspects, we delete Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) on an estimate basis out of total addition made by the AO and confirmed by the ld.CIT(A).
In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the Court on 25th March, 2019.
Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIPKUMAR KEDIA) (RAJPAL YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER