Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an individual, declared an income of Rs. 4,22,000/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) added Rs. 14,00,000/- alleging it was unexplained cash deposit. The assessee claimed the source was sale of cars and cash kept for daughter's marriage, but the AO did not consider these submissions. The CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal for lack of supporting documents.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including sale invoices of cars and a wedding invitation, to establish the source of the cash deposit as consideration from selling cars for daughter's marriage expenses. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(Appeals) was deleted.
Key Issues
Whether the cash deposit in the bank account, explained as sale proceeds of vehicles for a daughter's marriage, is to be treated as unexplained income under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, and whether interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C was rightly charged.
Sections Cited
69A, 115BBE, 234A, 234B, 234C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-(KZ)
Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Dipak Kumar Majumder,……………...…...……Appellant 6/22, Uday Shankar Bithi, City Centre, Durgapur-713216, West Bengal [PAN:AEPPM8159M] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………....Respondent Ward-1(4), Durgapur, Aayakar Bhawan, City Centre, Durgapur-713216, West Bengal Appearances by: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the assessee Ms. Madhumita Das, Addl. CIT, appeared on behalf of the Revenue Date of concluding the hearing: January 8, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order: March 17, 2025 O R D E R
The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 2nd February, 2024 passed for Assessment Year 2017-18.
(A.Y. 2017-2018) Dipak Kumar Majumdar 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income declaring income of Rs.4,22,000/-. The ld. Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.14,00,000/- by saying that such amount of cash deposit was made in the Bank account of the assessee. Before the ld. Assessing Officer, the assessee has explained the source of cash deposited in the Bank which was made out of sale proceeds of car/vehicles and out of cash withdrawn and cash kept in hand for the purpose of marriage ceremony of his daughter. The ld. Assessing Officer has not considered the submissions made by the assessee and made an addition of Rs.14,00,000/-. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals).
After considering the submissions of the assessee, the ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee saying that there is no supporting document or evidence in support of cash deposit.
On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and raised the following issues:- (1) For that on the facts of the case, the Ld. C1T(A) has passed on 02.02.2024 which is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal. (2) For that on the facts of the case, the Ld. C.I.T.(A) was wrong in not considering the merit of the case, therefore, the order passed by the Ld. C.I.T.(A) is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal. (3) For that on the facts of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was wrong in dittoing the order of the A.O. and not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 14,00,000/- on account of cash deposited in bank during the demonetization period (A.Y. 2017-2018) Dipak Kumar Majumdar treating the same as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the LT. Act. (4) For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered that the assessee had discharged its onus by furnishing all the relevant documents in connection with the source of fund, and withdrawal made immediately for the purpose of daughter’s marriage, therefore, the A.O. may be directed to delete the addition amounting to Rs.14,00,000/- made u/s. 69A of the LT. Act. (5) For that on the facts of the case, the A.O. was wrong in applying section 115BBE which is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal. (6) For that the charging interest u/s. 234A at Rs.10,992/-, u/s. 234B at Rs.3,62,736/- and u/s. 234C at Rs.888/- is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal. (7) For that the appellant reserves the right to adduce any further ground or grounds, if necessary, at or before the hearing of the appeal.
I have heard both the sides. It was the submission of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that the assessee is a senior citizen and for the purpose of marriage expenses of his daughter, she sold her cars/vehicles and invoices also placed before the revenue authorities but without examining any of the documents/evidences filed by the assessee, ld. Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.14,00,000/- which was confirmed by the ld. CIT(Appeals). He, therefore, pleaded to delete the addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer.
On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative submitted that since the assessee has not clearly established the source for cash deposit, therefore, the ld. Assessing Officer rightly made the addition and the same was confirmed by the ld.
I have perused the relevant documents filed by the assessee by way of paper book. The only contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee is that the assessee sold his cars to meet the marriage expenditure of his daughter and to establish the sales, the assessee also filed the invoices on different dates, which clearly establishes that the assessee received sale consideration by selling his cars. Apart from this, the assessee also filed the wedding invitation of the marriage of his daughter, which is placed at pages 11 & 12 of the paper book. On perusal of the said documents, it is clear that the assessee has performed the marriage of his daughter and for the purpose of marriage, he sold the cars and deposited the sale consideration in the Bank and withdrew the money from the Bank to meet the marriage expenses of his daughter. He also filed the Bank Statement in his paper book.
7.1. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the assessee has explained the source for cash deposit was only by way of sale consideration received by the assessee. Therefore, I delete the addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer as confirmed by the ld. CIT(Appeals). Hence the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.
The issue involved in Ground No. 6 relating to charging of interest under sections 234A, 234B and 234C is consequential in nature and the Assessing Officer is
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 17/03/2025.