SHRI RAMA DHIN PRASAD,HZB vs. ITO WD-2(1), HZB

PDF · subscribers
ITA 184/RAN/2018Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi08 April 20192 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that while the assessee's claim of past savings was not fully substantiated, a complete addition of ₹5 lac was not justified. Therefore, a lump sum addition of ₹2.50 lac was considered just and proper.

What were the facts?

The assessee deposited ₹5 lac in cash into his bank account. He claimed this was from past savings and his retirement as a state government employee. However, he failed to provide details of his cash-in-hand or a cash flow statement.

What were the issues?

Whether the entire cash deposits made by the assessee could be added to his income without proper substantiation, and if not, what would be a fair addition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH “SMC” RANCHI

Before: Shri S.S, Godara

आदेश /O R D E R This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2010-11, arises against the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-Hazaribagh’s order dated 18.04.2018 passed in case No.10029/HZB/2017-18, involving proceedings u/s. 147 r.w.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 ground seeks to reverse both the lower authorities action adding his entire cash deposits of ₹5 lac made in Axis bank account. His only plea during the course of hearing is that he has been carrying forward his past savings in the nature of cash-in-hand. It further emerges that assessee has retired as state government employee as well. The fact also remains that he has not placed on

ITA No.184/Ran/2018 A.Y. 2010-11 Ramadhin Prasad Vs. ITO Wd-2(1),HZB Page 2 record either his cash-in-hand details of cash flow statement. I taken into account all these peculiar facts to conclude that a lump sum addition of ₹2.50 lac instead of ₹5 lac in issue would be just and proper. Ordered accordingly. 3. This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in accordance with Rule 34(4) of the ITAT Rules by putting on Notice Board on 08/04/2019 Sd/- (S.S. Godara) Judicial Member Ranchi, *Dkp/Sr.PS �दनांकः- 08/04/2019 रांची आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant-Ramadhin Prasad, Yaswant Nagar, Near Markham College Barkagoan Road, Haaribagh-825301 2. ��यथ�/Respondent-Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Hazaribagh 3. संबं$धत आयकर आयु'त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु'त- अपील / CIT (A) 5. (वभागीय �+त+न$ध, आयकर अपील�य अ$धकरण रांची / DR, ITAT, Ranchi 6. गाड- फाइल / Guard file. By order/आदेश से, /True Copy/ Sr. Private Secretary/P.S आयकर अपील�य अ$धकरण, रांची ।

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →