RAJENDRA P PATNI,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 10(3), PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 874/PUN/2018Status: FixedITAT Pune25 July 2019AY 2009-104 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee successfully explained the source of Rs. 5.20 lakh as a re-deposit of withdrawn cash. However, no argument was advanced for the remaining Rs. 3.80 lakh.

What were the facts?

The assessee deposited Rs. 9.00 lakh in his bank account. He explained that Rs. 5.20 lakh was a re-deposit of cash withdrawn earlier, and the remaining amount was a gift. The Assessing Officer added the entire Rs. 9.00 lakh as unexplained.

What were the issues?

Whether the cash deposit in the bank account was of an unexplained source. Whether the assessee sufficiently explained the source of the cash deposit.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL

For Appellant: Shri Hari Krishan
For Respondent: Shri Vishwas Munde

PER R.S.SYAL, VP :

This appeal by the assessee arises out of the order passed by the CIT(A)-8, Pune on 29-01-2018 in relation to the assessment year 2009-10.

2.

The only issue raised in this appeal is against the confirmation of addition of Rs.9.00 lakh towards unexplained source of cash deposited in the bank account.

2 ITA No.874/PUN/2018 Shri Rajendra P. Patni

3.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee

deposited a sum of Rs.9.00 lakh in his bank account. On being

called upon to explain the source of such deposit, the assessee

stated that a sum of Rs.5,20,000/- was earlier withdrawn from

the same bank account, which was re-deposited. As regards the

remaining amount, the assessee gave some explanation about

having received some gift received from his daughter-in-law.

Not convinced, the Assessing Officer (AO) made addition of

Rs.9.00 lac, which came to be sustained in the first appeal.

4.

I have heard both the sides and gone through the relevant

material on record. I have also gone through the bank passbook

in which the said sum of Rs.9.00 lakh was deposited. On perusal

of the said passbook, it is discernible that the assessee withdrew

cash of Rs.2.00 lakh on 29-03-2008; Rs.2,50,000/- on

02-04-2008; and Rs.70,000/- on 05-04-2008. Deposits in the

bank which have been added by the AO are Rs.1,50,000/- on

15-05-2008 and Rs.7,50,000/- on 16-05-2008. Thus, it is evident

that there is hardly a difference of less than two months in the

amount of withdrawals from the bank and re-deposits. It is not

the case of the AO that the amounts withdrawn amounting to

3 ITA No.874/PUN/2018 Shri Rajendra P. Patni

Rs.5,20,000/- were spent elsewhere. Once a particular amount

has been withdrawn which has not been spent anywhere, and if a

further deposit is made, the argument of the re-deposit in the

bank account cannot be ruled out without any other cogent

contrary material. In the given circumstances, I am satisfied that

the assessee successfully explained the source of cash deposit in

his bank account to the tune of Rs.5,20,000/-. The addition to

this extent is, ergo, deleted.

5.

No argument was advanced by the ld. AR with regard to

the remaining addition. Thus, the differential amount of addition

of Rs.3,80,000/- is held to have been rightly sustained.

6.

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 25th July, 2019.

Sd/- (R.S.SYAL) उपा�य�/ VICE PRESIDENT उपा�य� उपा�य� उपा�य�

पुणे Pune; �दनांक Dated : 25th July, 2019 सतीश

4 ITA No.874/PUN/2018 Shri Rajendra P. Patni

आदेश क� क� क� �ितिलिप क� �ितिलिप �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत �ितिलिप �ेिषत �ेिषत / Copy of the Order is forwarded to : �ेिषत आदेश आदेश आदेश अपीलाथ� / The Appellant; 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent; 2. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / 3. The CIT (Appeals)-8, Pune 4. The Pr.CIT-5, Pune िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे “SMC” / 5. DR ‘SMC’, ITAT, Pune; गाड� फाईल / Guard file. 6. // True copy // आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार

// True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune

Date 1. Draft dictated on 24-07-2019 Sr.PS 2. Draft placed before author 24-07-2019 Sr.PS 3. Draft proposed & placed -- JM before the second member 4. Draft discussed/approved -- JM by Second Member. 5. Approved Draft comes to Sr.PS the Sr.PS/PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS 7. Date of uploading order Sr.PS 8. File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS 9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk 10. Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11. Date of dispatch of Order. *

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →