C.N.BABU,RAMANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, RAMANAGARA

ITA 356/BANG/2019Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 August 2022AY 2008-0922 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not admitting the affidavit of the brother-in-law as additional evidence, as it was vital to the explanation of the cash deposit. The Tribunal also noted that the AO incorrectly applied Section 68 instead of Section 69A of the Income Tax Act.

What were the facts?

The assessee's hotel business did not maintain books of accounts. The Assessing Officer (AO) added Rs. 5 lakhs as unexplained cash credit based on a deposit in the assessee's bank account, rejecting the assessee's explanation that the money was from his brother-in-law for a property purchase. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the addition, refusing to admit the brother-in-law's affidavit as additional evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the additional evidence (affidavit) and whether the cash deposit was an unexplained cash credit or related to a property transaction.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(10)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

For Appellant: Shri. Raghavendra R. Chakravarthy, CA
For Respondent: Shri. K. R. Narayana, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Hearing: 08.08.2022Pronounced: 16.08.2022

Per N. V. Vasudevan, Vice President This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 27.12.2018 of CIT(A) – 3, Bengaluru, relating to Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Ground Nos.1, 11 and 12 raised by the assessee are general in nature and does not require any adjudication. Ground No.2 raised by the assessee reads as follows:

2.

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in upholding addition made by the Assessing Officer amounting to Rs.5,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and the same is liable to be annulled under the facts and circumstances of the case.

3.

The assessee is an individual. He filed a return of i

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →