TEK SINGH,GUHLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KAITHAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1231/CHANDI/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 May 2025AY 2011-12Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to furnish complete verifiable evidence for the cash deposits. Considering the facts, a lump sum addition of Rs. 1 Lac would meet the ends of justice.

What were the facts?

The assessee's case for AY 2011-12 was reopened to examine cash deposits of Rs. 10.13 Lacs. The AO added Rs. 6 Lacs, which was confirmed by the CIT(A) for want of verifiable evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of Rs. 5 Lacs towards cash deposits is justified when the assessee provided some explanation and failed to provide complete verifiable evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH

Before: HON’BLE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12 arises out of an order of learned Addl. / Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Mumbai, [CIT(A)] dated 28-10-2024 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 27-11-2018. The sole grievance of the assessee is confirmation of addition of cash deposit for Rs.6 Lacs. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records, the appeal is disposed-off as under.

2.

It emerges that the assessee’s case was reopened to examine the sources of cash deposit of Rs.10.13 Lac as made by the assessee in his savings bank account. The assessee furnished bank statement and copy of account from commission agent regarding agricultural income. The Ld. AO partly accepted the claim of the assessee but added the amount of Rs.6 Lacs in the hands of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the assessment for want of verifiable evidences. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.

3.

Upon perusal of Page-29 of the paper-book, it could be seen that the assessee has furnished cash flow statement for this year. The deposits are stated to be made out of agricultural receipts and earlier cash withdrawals. However, it could also be seen that the assessee failed to furnish verifiable evidences in support of entire cash deposits. After going through this statement, we are of the considered opinion that a lump sum addition of Rs.1 Lacs would meet the end of justice considering the facts of the case. In other words, the impugned addition for Rs.5 Lacs stand deleted whereas the addition for Rs.1 Lacs stand confirmed. 4. The appeal stand partly allowed. Order pronounced on 20-05-2025. (LALIET KUMAR) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद" /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 20-05-2025. आदेश की "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ"/Appellant 2. ""थ"/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु"/CIT 4. िवभागीय"ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड"फाईल/GF

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →