Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee challenged the CIT(A)'s order upholding additions related to unexplained cash credit in bank accounts and investment in LIC. The assessee argued that the bank accounts were in his wife's name and the investment was from her agricultural income, with her returns already filed.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the wife's Income Tax Returns for the relevant assessment years were filed for the first time during the proceedings. Therefore, the Tribunal deemed it fit to set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer for verification and to pass orders after giving due opportunity to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the additions made on account of cash credits and LIC investment are to be confirmed without verifying the source of funds from the assessee's wife's agricultural income and her filed returns?
Sections Cited
147, 144, 68
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH
Before: DR. BRR KUMAR & Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR
Paresh Ramanbhai Income Tax Officer, Amin Ward-4, 102, Sarjan Residency, Vs Anand Nr. I.B. Patel Park V.V. Nagar Anand Gujarat-388120 PAN: AFSPA5760L (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee Represented: Shri Dipen Shukhadia, A.R. Revenue Represented: Smt. Trupti Patel, Sr.D.R. Date of hearing : 11-02-2025 Date of pronouncement : 17-02-2025 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
This appeal is filed by the Assessee as against the appellate order dated 18.09.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (in short referred to as “CIT(A)”), arising out of the reassessment order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee are as follows:
Page No 2 Paresh Ramanbhai Amin vs. ITO
The Learned CIT (A) has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 19,81,445/- u/s 68 as unexplained cash credit in bank accounts.
The Learned CIT (A) has accounts refereed by A.O. is only joint holder of the Appellant erred in not appreciating the facts that the bank in the name of the Wife of the appellant and appellant said accounts and transactions are not pertain to 3. The Learned CIT (A) has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 1,04,588/- in respect of Investment in LIC as unexplained. 4. The Learned CIT (A) has not appreciated the facts that the said amount are paid in cash by the wife of the appellant out of her Agriculture income. The aforesaid grounds are without prejudice to each other and the appellant craves leave to add/delete/alter and/or amend any of grounds as aforesaid as and when necessary. 3. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs. 19,81,445/- on account of credit entries and cash deposited in four bank accounts. The assessee submitted that two bank account of HDFC Bank Account numbers ending with 50335 and 79573 are in the name of his wife Smt. Nita Amin and her Return of Income copies were already filed before Ld. CIT(A), however he confirmed the additions.
3.1. Similarly another account of HDFC Bank Account number ending with 79270, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs.25,579/- wherein Rs. 25,000/- was transferred from his wife account and remaining Rs. 579/- is the Saving Bank Account interest which has been declared in the ITR and the deposit in Corporation Bank was also explained by the assessee. However Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the above additions.
Page No 3 Paresh Ramanbhai Amin vs. ITO 3.2. Similarly Ld. CIT(A) has upheld the addition of Rs.1,04,588/- in respect of investment in LIC is unexplained . The assessee also explained the investment is from her wife out of her agricultural income which is reflecting in the Return of Income filed by her, without considering the same, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition which is required to be deleted.
Per contra, Ld. Sr. D.R. appearing for the Revenue, the assessee for the first time produced the copies of the Income Tax Return filed by the assessee’s wife with computation of income, so the matter be set aside to the file of Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to verify the same.
We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. Since the Returns of Income of assessee’s wife namely Smt. Nita Amin are filed for the first time relating to the Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. We deem it fit to set aside the matter to the file of Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to verify the same and pass order in accordance with law by giving proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.