Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH, ‘A’ PUNE- VIRTUAL COURT
Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL & SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI
आदेश / ORDER
PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM :
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated
27-03-2020 passed by the Pr. CIT u/s.263 of the Income-tax Act,
1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) in relation to the Assessment
Year 2010-11.
This appeal is time barred by 33 days. The assessee has filed
a condonation petition giving reasons for the delay. The said
reasons have been perused and found to be satisfactory. The delay is
condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing.
2 ITA No.462/PUN/2020 Dharamraj Baba Borade
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is an
individual working with Sangola Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd.,
Sangola. On the basis of some information about the assessee
having deposited cash of Rs.26,76,785/- in his bank A/c.
No.0020001010000540 maintained with Sangola Urban Co-op.
Bank Ltd., the AO issued notice u/s.148 of the Act. A return was
filed declaring total income at Rs.1,93,252/- with Agricultural
income of Rs.4.63 lakh. The assessment was completed u/s.143(3)
r.w.s.147 of the Act at total income of Rs.3,93,250/- and
Agricultural income of Rs.2,70,000/-. While completing the
assessment, the AO made an addition of Rs.2.00 lakh u/s.69 of the
Act as `Income from undisclosed sources’. The ld. Pr.CIT, on
review of the assessment order and other records, observed that the
assessee deposited cash of Rs.26.76 lakh in his Savings Bank
Account maintained with Sangola Urban Co-op. Bank Ltd., in
support of which he submitted the sources as his as well as of his
wife’s income. The Pr. CIT held that the assessment order was
erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue inasmuch as the
AO completed the assessment without carrying out proper
inquiry/investigation and simply made an addition of Rs.2.00 lakh,
3 ITA No.462/PUN/2020 Dharamraj Baba Borade
which was not logical. On being called upon to explain as to why
the revision should not be carried out, the assessee submitted that
the actual cash deposited in the bank account was only Rs.5.00 lakh
and the ITS data erroneously showed cash deposits of Rs.26.76
lakh. The assessee further submitted that he tendered necessary
explanation about the cash deposits and the AO, on not being
satisfied with the source of cash deposit of Rs.2.00 lakh, made the
addition for the said sum. Not convinced, the ld. Pr. CIT set-aside
the assessment order and remitted the matter to the file of AO for
deciding it afresh as per law. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee has
come up in appeal before the Tribunal.
We have heard the rival submissions through Virtual Court
and gone through the relevant material on record. It can be seen
that the reassessment was initiated on account of cash deposited in
the bank a/c amounting to Rs.26.76 lakh, being, the same subject
matter on which the assessment order has been revised. During the
course of the assessment proceedings, as is borne out from the
assessment order dt. 28-11-2017, the assessee submitted written
explanation about the source of cash deposited in the bank account.
The AO was not convinced with the source of cash deposits to the
4 ITA No.462/PUN/2020 Dharamraj Baba Borade
tune of Rs.2.00 lakh only, for which he made the addition. The
assessee contended before the ld. Pr.CIT that the figure of cash
deposited in the bank account amounting to Rs.26.76 lakh was
erroneous and the correct cash deposit amount was only Rs.5.00
lakh. This contention has not been jettisoned by the ld. Pr. CIT. We
have gone through the copy of bank account of the assessee in
which the alleged cash was deposited. It can be seen from such
bank account that there are only two cash deposits entries of
Rs.3,10,000/- on 06-09-2009 and Rs.2,00,000/- on 14-10-2009.
Other credits in the bank account are either transfers from Gold
Loan Account or other transfers or receipt of some cheque or credit
of salary or credit of advance against salary or maturity of FDRs
etc. As regards the cash deposit of Rs.3,10,000/-, it is seen that
during the current year the assessee withdrew cash of Rs.2,70,000/-
from the same bank account prior to the date of re-deposit on 06-09-
2009. The fact is that the assessee was having Agricultural income
and his wife was also doing Xerox business. The availability of the
remaining cash of Rs.40,000/- out of such sources cannot be ruled
out. The other cash deposit of Rs.2.00 lakh made in the bank
account has been added by the AO in the assessment order. This
5 ITA No.462/PUN/2020 Dharamraj Baba Borade
shows that the AO was justified in canvassing the view that addition
of Rs.2.00 lakh was called for in respect of cash deposits in the bank
account. Since the assessment order itself is not erroneous, there
can be no question of revising the said order u/s.263 of the Act,
which, primarily, requires an assessment order not only to be
erroneous but also prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. We,
therefore, set-aside the impugned order.
In the result, the appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 12th January,
2022.
Sd/- Sd/- (R.S.SYAL) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER
पुणे Pune; िदनांक Dated : 12th January, 2022 Satish
आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: अपीलाथ� / The Appellant; 1. ��थ� / The Respondent; 2. 3. The Pr.CIT-6, Pune 4. DR, ITAT, ‘A’ Bench, Pune गाड� फाईल / Guard file. 5. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,
// True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune
6 ITA No.462/PUN/2020 Dharamraj Baba Borade
Date 1. Draft dictated on 12-01-2022 Sr.PS 2. Draft placed before author 12-01-2022 Sr.PS 3. Draft proposed & placed before AM the second member 4. Draft discussed/approved by AM Second Member. 5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS Sr.PS/PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS 7. Date of uploading order Sr.PS 8. File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS 9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk 10. Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11. Date of dispatch of Order. *