Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for assessment year 2011-12, which was delayed by 6 days. The delay was condoned due to bonafide reasons. The primary issue was the correctness of cash deposits noted by the Assessing Officer.
Held
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's contention that the total cash credits were ₹.18,07,000/- instead of ₹.23,07,231/-. While allowing benefit for withdrawals, the request for set off of opening capital was rejected.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in confirming the Assessing Officer's order regarding the quantum of cash deposits and withdrawals, considering the age of the financial year.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadish
Year: 2011-12 Sugumar Suvitha, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 155/1, Oduvampalayam, Ward 1, Kuppandapalayam, Tiruchengode, Tiruchengode. Tamil Nadu 637 205. [PAN:CEIPS5234L] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkatraman, FCA by virtual ��थ� की ओर से/Respondent by : Smt. Gouthami Manivasagam JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 11.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 26.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R
PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 26.07.2024 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the assessment year 2011-12.
We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 6 days. The ld. AR Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkatraman, F.C.A. explains the reason for the delay and submits that due to the circumstances beyond her control, the assessee could not file the appeal within the stipulated time. He further submits that delay in filing the appeal is neither wilful not wanton and prayed to condone the short delay. Upon hearing both the parties, we find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide, which really prevented in filing the appeal in time. Thus, the delay is condoned and admitted the appeal for adjudication.
The assessee raised 5 grounds of appeal amongst which, the only issue emanates for our consideration as to whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in confirming the order passed by the Assessing Officer in the facts and circumstances of the case.
4. At the outset, the ld. AR brought to our notice that the figure of total credits in the bank account as found by the Assessing Officer at ₹.23,07,231/- is not correct and drew our attention to the total cash deposits as on 31.03.2011, as provided in the written submissions, at ₹.18,07,000/-. He prayed to declare the figure of amount of ₹.23,07,231/- is not correct and treat ₹.18,07,000/- as correct figure. The ld. DR Smt. Gauthami Manivasagam, JCIT did not dispute the same. Therefore, we proceed to treat the total cash credit as on 31.03.2011 is only at ₹.18,07,000/- but not ₹.23,07,231/-.
5. Further, the ld. AR drew our attention to the details of withdrawals as provided in page 2 of the written submissions and prayed for benefit of said withdrawals to an extent of ₹.6,00,000/- and set off of opening cash balance as on 01.04.2010. The ld. AR further submits by referring to page 1 of the written submissions and prayed to adopt peak credit concept at ₹.5,02,996/- as on 30.10.2010 or 50% of the cash deposits after granting benefit of withdrawal and set off of opening capital. The ld. DR fairly conceded to give benefit of withdrawals thereto in view of the financial year being 15 years old.
6. After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the records, we find the details of withdrawals as reflecting at page 2 of the written submissions, which are not disputed and in our opinion, requires to be given benefit. However, we find no details of opening capital placed on record as on the last day of the financial year. Therefore, the request for set off of opening balance is rejected. The remaining amount of ₹.12,07,000/- [₹.18,07,000 – 6,00,000] is to be assessed to tax. Since the ld. AR submitted assessee’s inability to furnish explanation for the source of said cash deposit in view of old financial year of 15 years, we accept the submissions of the ld. AR in adopting 50% of ₹.12,07,000/- i.e., ₹.6,07,000/- as income of the assessee and it is chargeable to tax. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are partly allowed.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed.
Order pronounced on 26th February, 2025 at Chennai.