Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SRI MANISH BORAD
order
: September 15th, 2022 ORDER
Per Manish Borad, Accountant Member:
This appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year (in short “AY”) 2016-17 is directed against the order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the “Act”) by ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short ld. “CIT(A)”] dated 24.12.2021 arising out of the assessment order framed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 29.11.2018.
The assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal raising the following grounds: “
1. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) was wrong and unjustified in confirming the disallowance of I.T.A. No.: 61/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sri Aswini Kanodia. Rs. 1028500/- made by the Assessing Officer. On a proper consideration of the facts of the case he should have found that the said amount of Rs. 1028500/- was deposited in bank out of cash available in the hands of the appellant.
2. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) was wrong in not considering the explanation of the appellant with regard to cash deposited in bank during the year. The upholding of addition of Rs. 1028500/- by the Ld. CIT(A) is wrong, unjustified and arbitrary.
3. For that the appellant craves leave to adduce and/or alter further ground/s on or before hearing of the appeal.”
3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee declared income of Rs. 3,30,990/- in the return of income filed on 23.06.2016. The case selected for scrutiny through CASS followed by notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, ld. AO observed that the assessee has deposited a cash amount of Rs. 10,28,500/-. Ld. AO was not satisfied with the explanation claimed by the assessee and added the same to the income and income assessed at Rs. 13,59,490/-.
4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before ld. CIT(A), but failed to succeed.
5. Aggrieved, the assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal.
6. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the source of the alleged cash deposit was cash withdrawn from the bank during the year itself and it is sufficient to explain the same. He also submitted that in the recent past the assessee sold an immovable property and sale consideration was received and deposited in the bank account. This amount was withdrawn in cash on various I.T.A. No.: 61/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sri Aswini Kanodia. dates and the assessee had cash in hand available before the date of alleged cash deposits and therefore, no addition was called for.
Per contra, ld. D/R vehemently argued supporting the orders of both the lower authorities.
I have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before me. The sole grievance of the assessee is that ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 10,28,500/- made by the ld. AO on account of unexplained cash deposit. On perusal of the records, I observe that before 29.04.2015 the assessee sold an immovable property i.e. 1 BHK Flat situated at SP-Spandan, New Town, Kolkata and received an amount of Rs. 14,51,000/-. Thereafter, during the period 29.04.2015 to 24.11.2015 cash was withdrawn on various occasions totalling to Rs. 12,98,000/-. The alleged cash deposits were made during the period 28.03.2016 to 31.03.2016. The only allegation of the Revenue authorities is that the assessee could not explain why it kept cash in hand and not in bank. I do not find any merit in such observations of lower authorities. The assessee has duly explained the source of the alleged cash deposit. A direct nexus has been established between the cash withdrawals made during the year and the cash deposit at the fag end of the year. There can be many reasons for which an individual feels need to keep cash in hand. Unless anything contrary to the said facts is being placed on record, the claim of the assessee cannot be doubted. Since no such contrary facts have been brought on record by the Revenue authorities, I am of the considered view that the alleged addition of Rs. 10,28,500/- is uncalled for as the assessee has duly explained the source thereof. I, therefore, set aside the I.T.A. No.: 61/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sri Aswini Kanodia. finding of ld. CIT(A) and delete the alleged addition of Rs. 10,28,500/- made by ld. AO and allow the grounds raised
by the assessee.
9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Kolkata, the 15th September, 2022. Sd/- [Manish Borad] Accountant Member Dated: 15.09.2022 Bidhan (P.S.) Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. Sri Aswini Kanodia, E 9/19, Indrolok Housing Estate-II, Paikpara, Kolkata-700 002.
2. ITO, Ward-44(1), Kolkata. 3. CIT(A)- NFAC, Delhi. 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata.