Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed his return of income for AY 2015-16 declaring Rs. 2,94,030/-. The case was selected for assessment under Section 143(3) and an addition of Rs. 19,90,210/- was made. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee had inadvertently shown an incorrect figure for cash in hand due to a clerical error in filing the return. Upon reviewing bank statements, it was found that the figure was a clubbing of bank balance and actual cash in hand. The addition was not justified.
Key Issues
Whether the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of cash in hand was justified when it was due to a clerical error in filing the return and supported by bank statements.
Sections Cited
250, 143(3), 69
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH KOLKATA
Before: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra
Assessment Year: 2015-16 Ratan Shaw………………….…………………....…………………....Appellant 15, L. N. Kabiraj Road, Gorifa, Naihati, WB-743166. [PAN: BVUPS8926H] vs. ITO, Ward-51(3), Kolkata..……………....…..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances by: Shri Anil Kochar, Adv., appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Abhijit Adhikari, JCIT, Sr. DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : August 21, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order : September 12, 2025 आदेश / ORDER
Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (A), Chennai (hereinafter referred to as “ld. CIT(A)”) dated 22.11.2024 passed under Section 250 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).
At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 12 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a condonation petition explaining the reasons or such delay. After considering the submissions and materials on record, we are satisfied that there was reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the said delay is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and for the assessment year 2015-16, the assessee filed his return of income declaring total income of Rs.2,94,030/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for regular assessment under section 143(3) of the Act and the assessment order was passed on 08.12.2017 making an addition of Rs.19,90,210/-.
Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) where the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by simply sustaining the order of the Assessing Officer.
Dissatisfied with the above order, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. At the time of hearing, the ld. AR contended that due to clerical error, while filing the return a figure of Rs.2012513/- was wrongly shown as cash in hand by clubbing both bank balance of Rs.1803271/- and cash in hand of Rs.209241/-. Thus the entire amount appeared under the head ‘cash in hand’ whereas it has actually included bank balance which was separately reflected in the bank account statement as reflected in 31.03.2015. He further submitted that this mistake occurred inadvertently and not with any intention to conceal facts. The assessee has placed on record the relevant bank statement by clearly showing a balance of Rs.1803271 tallies with the closing figure claimed and the error occurred due to oversight and should not have been treated as unexplained.
On the other hand, the ld. DR did not raise any objection to such submission made by the assessee before the Bench.
Ratan Shaw 7. We, after hearing both the parties and perusing the materials available on record, find that due to clerical error, while filing the return the assessee wrongly shown as cash in hand of Rs.2012513/- by clubbing both bank balance of Rs.1803271/- and cash in hand of Rs.209241/-. We note that the assessee has duly placed on record the relevant details of bank statement which clearly shows a balance of Rs.1803271/- tallies with the closing figure claimed. Considering the explanation and documents placed before us, we are of the view that the addition of Rs.19,90,210/- as unexplained investment is not justified. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs.19,90,210/- u/s 69 of the Act.
In terms of the above, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.