Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Before: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’डी’ �ायपीठ, चे�ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ी वी दुगा� राव �ाियक सद� एवं �ी जी. मंजुनाथा, लेखा सद� के सम� Before Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member & Shri G. Manjunatha, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./ Year:2010-11 Shri P. Prabhu, The Assistant Commissioner of 29/C-2, Venkat Rathna Manor, Vs. Income Tax, Race Course, Coimbatore 641 018. Corporate Circle 2, Coimbatore. [PAN:AIVPP2632E] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� की ओर से / Appellant by : None ��थ� की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 29.08.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 19.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Coimbatore, dated 11.10.2018 relevant to the assessment year 2010-11. The only issue involved in this appeal is relating to confirmation of addition of ₹.4,40,000/- towards unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short].
Facts are, in brief, that the assessee is the Managing Director of the company, M/s. MPS Steel Castings Pvt. Ltd. For the assessment year 2010-11, the assessee filed his return of income on 24.03.2012 admitting income of ₹.13,78,240/-. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case was reopened by issuing a notice under section 148 of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer asked the assessee about cash deposit of ₹.4,40,000/-. The assessee has explained that agricultural income of previous year of ₹.13,49,730/- was retained in cash and a part of it of ₹.4,40,000/- was deposited in bank on 16.06.2009. The Assessing Officer was of the opinion that how the previous year agricultural income still available with the assessee and by not accepting the explanation of the assessee, the addition under section 68 of the Act for ₹.4,40,000/- was made. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition.
On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. When the appeal was taken up for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. On an earlier occasion also when the appeal was taken up for hearing none appeared. Hence, we proceed to decide the appeal on merits after hearing the ld. DR.
We have heard the ld. DR, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below and find that the Assessing Officer has not accepted the explanation of the assessee that previous year agricultural income of ₹.13,49,730/- out of which ₹.4,40,000/- was deposited. As per the Assessing Officer, this is not a reasonable explanation for the reason that how the amount was still available with the assessee. It is not the case of the assessee that the assessee has not disclosed the agricultural income in the previous assessment year. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer on the ground that in the assessment year under consideration, the assessee has not having any agricultural income. We find that neither the Assessing Officer nor the ld. CIT(A) disputed the agricultural income of previous assessment year of ₹.13,49,730/-. We are of the opinion that out of agricultural income which was left with the assessee, the amount of ₹.4,40,000/- was deposited in the bank account on 16.06.2009. So the assessee has explained the source and the onus are charged by disclosing the source. Therefore, we find that the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on the 19th October, 2022 in Chennai.