M.S SOUTH OCEAN TRANSPORT PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO 11 (2)(3), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) did not properly examine the assessee's explanation, which had prima facie cogency given the nature of business and corresponding withdrawals. The issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
What were the facts?
The assessee, engaged in logistic services, deposited Rs. 24,09,000 in cash into its bank account. The assessee explained this was received from customers for paying customs duties on their behalf, and corresponding withdrawals were made for this purpose.
What were the issues?
Whether cash deposits in the bank account, explained as collections from customers for customs duties, could be treated as unexplained cash credit without proper examination by the revenue authorities.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” Bench, Mumbai
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned CIT(A) dated 23.10.2019 pertains to A.Y. 2013-14.
The ground of appeal reads as under :-
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, CIT(A) erred upholding the action of the Assessing Officer of treating cash deposited in the bank account as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. The CIT(A) ought to have deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer.
Brief facts of the case are that assessee is engaged in the logistic business/service provider and serves client for import and export shipments executed from various port of the world by sea as well as air mode. The AO in course of assessment proceedings noted that cash deposits of Rs. 24,09,000/- were there in the assessee's bank account. On query in this regard assessee explained that it has received cash from various customers and the same were withdrawn for payment to government account for custom duties on behalf of 2 M/s. South Ocean Transport Pvt. Ltd.
the customers. The addresses of the customer were also given to the assessing officer. Without examining these aspects the assessing officer proceeded to reject the assessee's explanation. Learned CIT(A) also without going into the facts of the case referred to a plethora of case laws and rejected the assessee's claim.
Against this order assessee is in appeal before the ITAT.
I have heard both the parties and perused the records. Learned counsel of the assessee reiterated the claim that the amount deposited was received from customers for payment of Customs duties which were subsequently withdrawn and paid to government account on behalf of customers. The learned counsel submitted voluminous paper book in support of the claim. I note that even the Assessing Officer in his order has noted that there are corresponding withdrawals in the bank the statement. This fact coupled with the fact of the assessee's nature of business which the assessing officer has himself noted it is amply clear that assessee explanation has prima facie cogency. Without cogently rebutting the explanation of the assessee the addition is not a sustainable as it clearly shows lack of application of mind by the authorities below.
In the interest of justice, I remit the issue to the file of assessing officer. The assessing officer is directed to examine the assessee's claim along with the submissions in this regard and thereafter pass an order as per law. Needless to add assessee should be granted adequate opportunity of being heard. Both the parties agreed to the above.
In the result assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced in the open court on 23.3.2022.
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S N D Waddar And Co vs. Sri Gaurav GuptaKarnataka · 30 Oct 2026