SH. AMIT KUMAR LEKHI,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-5(1), LUDHIANA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 52/CHANDI/2018Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 June 2019AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the additional evidence sought to be produced by the assessee was crucial for a proper decision. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer added Rs. 13,87,400/- as unexplained deposits in the assessee's bank account. The assessee claimed to be a Customer Service Provider for rural persons, facilitating bank deposits. However, the AO was not satisfied as the assessee failed to produce the depositors and the bank denied designating the assessee as a CSP.

What were the issues?

Whether the deposits in the assessee's bank account were unexplained income. Whether additional evidence should be admitted for a proper adjudication of the case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA No. 37-C-2015 M/s Oswal Woolen Mills, Ludhiana 2

13,87,400/- on account of unexplained deposits in the bank account of

the assessee.

3.

Brief facts relating to the issue are that the Assessing Officer

during the course of assessment proceedings noted that there were

various cash deposits in the saving bank account of the assessee

maintained with State Bank of India, Sanewal totaling Rs. 13,87,400/-.

When asked to explain in this respect, the assessee submitted that

assessee during the year had carried out activity as a ‘Customer Service

Provider’ (in short ‘CSP’). The assessee explained that rural persons

tender their savings to the assessee for further sending / crediting the

amount to their accounts or accounts of the family members as they feel

inconvenient to stand in line for long time or when there is connectivity

problem or server of the bank is down / out of order. However, the

Assessing Officer did not get satisfied with the above reply of the

assessee. He further noted that the assessee had failed to produce the

persons from which he had allegedly received the money for further

depositing in their bank accounts. He further noted that the enquires

made by him from the State Bank of India, Sanewal revealed that the

assessee was not designated ‘CSP’ of the bank. The Assessing Officer,

therefore, held that the aforesaid deposits totaling a sum of Rs.

18.37,000/- was ‘unexplained income’ of the assessee and added the

same to the income of the assessee.

ITA No. 37-C-2015 M/s Oswal Woolen Mills, Ludhiana 4

by the assessee from which it was not clear whether such letters were

given by the concerned persons to the bank or to the assessee. The ld

CIT(A), therefore, held that the assessee had failed to substantiate his

contention with reliable evince, therefore, upheld the additions made by

the Assessing Officer.

6.

Being aggrieve by the above order of the CIT(A), the assessee has

come in appeal before us. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has

reiterated the submissions as were made before the lower authorities.

Apart from that, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has also invited our

attention to an application dated 22.8.2018 for admission of the

additional evidences. It has been pleaded in the said application that the

assessee is a resident of Ludhiana which is an industrial town That

migratory labourers from the states of Utter Pradesh and Bihar and

other states work in various factories in Ludhiana. The assessee

provides them the service by taking small amount of deposits for further

depositing the same to their saving bank accounts / bank accounts of

their family members by charging a very small commission. It saves

time and effort of the laborers which they use for working overtime in

the factories. The assessee has sought to produce the additional

evidences in the shape of bank account statements of such persons to

prove that the amount in question had actually been transferred from

ITA No. 37-C-2015 M/s Oswal Woolen Mills, Ludhiana 6

assessment order in question prior to the stipulated date for filing of the

reply and evidences by the assessee. The evidences sought to be

furnished by the assessee go to the root of the case and, in our view, are

very much necessary to be gone through for proper decision of the case.

In view of this, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is hereby set aside and

the matter is remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer for

assessment afresh with a direction to the Assessing Officer to admit the

evidences sought to be produced by the assessee and pass the assessment

order afresh after duly considering the same. Needless to say that the

Assessing Officer will give proper opportunity to the assessee to present

his case. The appeal of the assessee is accordingly treated as allowed for

statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 17.06.2019.

Sd/- Sd/- (अ�नपूणा� गु�ता / ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (संजय गग� / SANJAY GARG) लेखा सद�य/ Accountant Member �या�यक सद�य/ Judicial Member Dated : 17.06.2019 “आर.के.” आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 2. ��यथ�/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�त/ CIT 4. आयकर आयु�त (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य आ�धकरण, च�डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाड� फाईल/ Guard File

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →