RAJESH KUMAR SHATHILAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,NCC 22(1), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 307/CHNY/2022Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 September 2022AY 2017-20184 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the AO failed to verify the cash deposits made by the assessee during the demonetization period, there was no infirmity in the revision order passed by the PCIT. The AO was directed to verify the assessee's explanation regarding the availability of cash.

What were the facts?

The assessee deposited a significant amount of cash during the demonetization period. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) initiated revision proceedings under Section 263, finding that the Assessing Officer (AO) had not adequately verified the source of these cash deposits.

What were the issues?

Whether the revision order passed by the PCIT is sustainable when the AO failed to verify the source of cash deposits made by the assessee during demonetization.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGHAND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA

Hearing: 19.09.2022Pronounced: 19.09.2022

आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 307/CHNY/2022 िनधा�रण वष� /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Rajesh Kumar Shanthilal, The ACIT, C/o. Shanthi Jewellers, v. Non-Corporate Circle -22(1), Indira Gandhi Road, Tambaram, Pallavaram, Chennai. Chennai – 600 043. PAN: AAEPR 6767M (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/Appellant by : Shri J. Prabhakar, CA ��यथ� क� ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Guru Bashyam, CIT सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 19.09.2022 घोषणा क� तार�ख/Date of Pronouncement : 19.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R

PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT:

1.

This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the Revision order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai u/s.263 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’), in Revision PCIT, Chennai-1/Revision-263/100000329499/2022 dated 26.03.2022. The assessment was framed by the Income ACIT, Non- 2 Corporate Circle 22(1), Tambaram, Chennai for the assessment year 2017-18 u/s.143(3) of the Act vide order dated 11.10.2019.

2.

The only issue in this appeal of assessee is against the revision order passed by the PCIT is that the source of availability of cash was explained before the AO and hence, revision order passed by PCIT is not sustainable.

3.

We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstance of the case. The dispute is cash deposit of Rs.1,94,48,000/- in new currency during the demonetization period as against the total cash deposit of Rs.3,77,58,000/- between the period 09.11.2016 to 31.12.2016. The PCIT in his findings recorded the fact as under:- 6. In the online compliance made for source of cash deposit during demonetization period, as sought on the e-filing portal, the assessee had responded for his account in Canara Bank (deposit Rs.6,90,000/-) and HDFC Bank (deposit Rs.3,77,58,000/-) with the same explanation as mentioned supra: i.e. from retail gold jewellery sales and savings scheme collection from multiple parties This explanation was repeated during the present proceedings.

7.

Before the undersigned the Authorised Representatives filed extracts from cash book showing opening balance as on 01.04.2016 of Rs.39,84,554/- and on 08.11.2016 of Rs.1,57,03,447/-. The assessee claims to have 22 group chit schemes from which Rs.8.44 Crores was collected in the period from 1.4.2016 to 08.11.2016 and which contributed to the balance of Rs.1.57 crores available as on 08.11.2016. This appears to be at variance with another 3 list of 329 chit subscribers filed during the present proceedings by the AR, totaling to Rs.3,51,500. This was given as part of the explanation for cash availability on 08.11.2016.

The PCIT after taking all the evidences noted that the above explanation submitted by assessee now needs verification because the AO has not at all carried out any verification and assessee has not at all produced any evidence before the AO during original assessment. The ld.CIT-DR took us through the assessment order that the AO has not at all verified the demonetization cash deposit of Rs.1,94,48,000/- and the total cash deposit of Rs.3,77,58,000/-. Now, assessee before us has filed complete details of cash summary for the period 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017 i.e., cash deposit during demonetization period also. The assessee had tried to explain but we have no mechanism to verify this availability of cash from the cash book. The ld.counsel for the assessee admitted that the AO has not carried out any verification. As the AO failed to verify these cash deposits made by assessee during demonetization period, we find no infirmity in the revision order. Hence, we confirm the revision order passed by PCIT and direct the AO to verify the explanation of the assessee as regards to availability of cash generated out of sales made and then decide the issue as per law. 4 4. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed with the above direction.

Order pronounced in the open court on 19th September, 2022 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →