DHARAMRAJ BABA BORADE,SANGOLE vs. PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -6, PUNE

आदेश / ORDER

PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM :

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, 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.

The AO was not convinced with the source of cash deposits to the 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 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.