SHRI. RAVI ANJANEYALU,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(2)(3), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 221/BANG/2020Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 July 2022AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal remitted the issue of unexplained deposits to the AO for fresh consideration with directions for the assessee to prove the source of each deposit. For the difference in Form 26AS, the AO was directed to consider only 8% net profit on the impugned turnover.

What were the facts?

The assessee made cash deposits of Rs. 42.70 lakhs in a savings bank account, which could not be explained. Additionally, there was a difference of Rs. 3,02,476/- between declared income and Form 26AS, which the AO treated as unexplained income.

What were the issues?

Whether the AO correctly treated the unexplained cash deposits as income and how to treat the difference between declared income and Form 26AS.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE

Before: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI & SMT. BEENA PILLAI

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Kumar L., A.R
For Respondent: Shri Srinivas Rao Bandaru, D.R
Hearing: 14.07.2022Pronounced: 14.07.2022

PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

This appeal by assessee is directed against order of CIT(A) dated 11.11.2019. The assessee is in appeal before us with regard to the addition of Rs.42.70 lakhs as unexplained deposits in savings bank account and also in appeal before us with regard to addition of Rs.3,02,476/- with regard to difference between income declared by assessee and amount shown in form No.26AS. The facts of the issue are that the AO noticed that the assessee has made cash deposit with a capacity of Rs.86.20 lakhs to SB account with Corporation Bank, Rajeshwarinagar, Bangalore. The AO called for explanation from the Shri Ravi Anjaneyalu, Bangalore

Page 2 of 3 assessee regarding source of deposit. Out of the above amount, assessee was not able to explain Rs.42.70 lakhs deposited to savings bank account. Same was considered as unexplained income of the assessee. Against this assessee is in appeal before us.

2.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. In this case, the impugned argument of assessee’s counsel is that assessee has withdrawn the money from the assessee firm which is having the current account and assessee is in a position to explain the same if an opportunity has been given to the assessee.

3.

The Ld. D.R. submitted that ample opportunity has been given to the assessee to prove the source of this deposit to SB account with Corporation Bank which the assessee failed to prove. Hence, the addition to be sustained. In our opinion, it is appropriate to remit the issue to the file of AO with direction to the assessee to prove the source of each deposit to impugned savings bank account with Corporation bank in his personal name with proper evidence. Accordingly, this issue is remitted to the AO for fresh consideration.

4.

Next issue is with regard to sustaining addition of Rs.3,02,476/- due to difference between receipts disclosed in form No.26AS at Rs.1,61,99,737/- and disclosed turnover at Rs.1,53,97,256/- equals to Rs.3,02,476/-. The contention of the assessee’s counsel is that AO has considered entire turnover of Rs.3,02,476/- as income of the assessee instead of taking the net profit at 8% on the undisclosed turnover of the assessee. In our opinion, the plea of the assessee is justified. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we direct the AO to consider only net profit at 8% of this impugned turnover of Rs.3,02,476/- as this is a part of the Shri Ravi Anjaneyalu, Bangalore

Page 3 of 3 total turnover of the assessee. Accordingly, this ground of assessee is allowed.

5.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 14th Jul, 2022

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →