SH. VIKRANT KANSHAL,BATHINDA vs. THE ICNOMET-AX OFFICER, BATHINDA

ITA 367/ASR/2014Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 July 2018AY 2008-0913 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee was maintaining books of account, contrary to his initial claim. While Section 68 was applicable, the addition was restricted to the peak credit amount in the employee's bank account, considering the factual complexities and the assessee's inability to properly represent the case.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a proprietor of V.K. Teleservices, earned commission income from ICICI Bank. Cash deposits were made in an employee's bank account, which the assessee claimed belonged to him and represented collections from the bank's customers. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of the entire cash deposited under Section 68.

What were the issues?

Whether the cash deposits in the employee's bank account constitute unexplained credits under Section 68, and if so, whether the addition should be the entire amount or the peak credit.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(17)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR.

Before: SH. SANJAY ARORA & SH. N. K. CHOUDHRY

For Respondent: Smt. Parwinder Kaur, CIT-DR
Hearing: 12.06.2018Pronounced: 12.07.2018

Per Sanjay Arora, AM: This is an Appeal by the Assessee directed against the Order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda (‘CIT (A)' for short) dated 26.03.2014, dismissing the assessee’s appeal contesting his assessment u/s. 143(3) r/w s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' hereinafter) dated 23.11.2011 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2008-09. 2. Opening the arguments for and on behalf of the assessee, it was submitted by the ld. counsel, Shri Ashwani Kalia, CA, that the assessee was during the relevant year working as a recovery agent for ICICI Bank. Adverting to TDS certificates (at PB pgs 12, 13), the same, he would continue, evidence the commission earned from the said activity at a gross

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →