SHRI TARUN SACHDEV,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(1), JAMSHEDPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 315/RAN/2016Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi21 May 2018AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to adjudicate the issue afresh after considering the relevant details and documents to be filed by the assessee.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 26,30,527/- on account of unexplained cash deposits in the assessee's bank accounts. The assessee claimed the deposits were out of withdrawals of own funds but failed to provide supporting documents. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition.

What were the issues?

Whether the cash deposits in the bank accounts were sufficiently explained by the assessee, and if not, whether the addition made by the AO was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI

Before: SHRI N.S SAINI & PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

For Appellant: Shri S.k.Poddar/Devesh Poddar, Adv
For Respondent: Shri A.K.Mohanty, JCIT
Hearing: 22/05

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI

BEFORE SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No.315/Ran/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-2013

Sri Tarun Sachdev, Om Vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Jamshedpur Tower, SB Shop Area, Bistupur, Jamshedpur PAN/GIR No. Aiops 7739 l (Appellant) .. ( Respondent)

Assessee by: Shri S.k.Poddar/Devesh Poddar, Adv Revenue by : Shri A.K.Mohanty, JCIT

Date of Hearing : 22/05/ 2018 Date of Pronouncement : 23 /05/ 2018 O R D E R Per N.S.Saini, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A),

Jamshedpur, dated 16.9.2016, for the assessment year 2012-2013.

2.

Ground No.1 of appeal reads as under:

“For that the CIT(A) was not justified in confirming a disallowance of Rs.2,63,393/- out of interest expenses claimed. The CIT(A) confirming the action of the AO failed to consider that loan was not utilised for personal purposes, as such, disallowance made by the AO to the extent of 38% of the expenses claimed is unjustified, illegal and arbitrary.”

2 IT A No.3 15/R an/2 016 Asse ssmen t Year: 2 012 -20 13

3.

As this ground was not pressed before the CIT(A), therefore, there can

be no grievance caused to the assessee against the order of the CIT(A).

Hence, these grounds of appeal are dismissed.

4.

Ground Nos.2 & 3 of appeal read as under:

‘3. For that the CIT(A) was not justified in making an addition of Rs.26,30,527/- on the ground that the deposits made in the bank account remains unexplained. All the deposits were explained in detail before the AO as well as before the CIT(A). The addition made while rejecting the submission of the appellant in a summary manner is unjustified, illegal and incorrect. 4. For that the appellant submitted details of the bank account, cash flow summary and confirmation from the partnership firm regarding withdrawal of funds from them. The detail of the gold loan and deposit made thereof in the bank account was also explained. There was no deposit which was not explained. As such, the addition made is unjustified, illegal and incorrect.”

5.

The brief facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer found that the

assessee had following bank accounts:

1.

The Federal bank A/c. No.11970100088807

2.

Axis Bank A.c No.005010100677011

3.

Indusind bank A/c No.0068-H00037-001

4.

Indusind Bank A/c No.0068-H01747-050

6.

The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has made cash

deposit of Rs.26,30,527/- in the above bank accounts. The assessee was

3 IT A No.3 15/R an/2 016 Asse ssmen t Year: 2 012 -20 13

asked to explain the source of the same. The assessee filed cash flow

statement and submitted that the cash deposit in the bank account was out

of withdrawals of own funds from the bank. Since the assessee did not file

relevant details and documents in support of his contention, the Assessing

Officer held the cash deposit of Rs.26,30,527/- as unexplained deposits in

the bank and added the same to the income of the assessee.

7.

On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer.

8.

Before us, the only argument of ld A.R. of the assessee is that the

assessee has all the relevant details and documents in support of the cash

deposits in the bank amounting to Rs.26,30,527/- and, therefore, in the

interest of justice, one more opportunity should be granted to the assessee

to produce the relevant details and documents before the CIT(A) in support

of the cash deposits in the bank.

9.

Ld D.R. did not have any objection to the submission of ld A.R. of the

assessee.

10.

In the given facts and circumstances of the case, we set aside the

orders of lower authorities and remand the matter back to the file of the

CIT(A) for adjudicating the issue afresh after considering the relevant details

and documents to be filed by the assessee in support of the cash deposits in

the bank accounts. Needless to mention that he shall allow reasonable

4 IT A No.3 15/R an/2 016 Asse ssmen t Year: 2 012 -20 13

opportunity of hearing to the assessee before adjudicating the issue afresh.

Thus, this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

11.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for

statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 23 /05/2018 Sd/- sd/- (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) (N.S Saini) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ranchi; Dated 23 /05 /2018 B.K.Parida, SPS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : Sri Tarun Sachdev, Om Tower, SB Shop Area, Bistupur, Jamshedpur 2. The respondent: ITO, Ward 1(1), Jamshedpur 3. The CIT(A), Jamshedpur 4. Pr. CIT, Jamshedpur 5. DR, ITAT, Ranchi BY ORDER, 6. Guard file. //True Copy// SR.PS, ITAT, CAMP AT RANCHI

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →