MR.SUNIL KUMAR LAKHOTIA,HOSPET vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BELLARY
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's request for a fresh examination of the issue. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the AO for a de novo assessment.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a businessman, introduced additional capital of Rs. 91.75 lakhs across his businesses. He claimed these were inter-book transfers from his personal accounts, supported by separate books of account for his ventures and personal finances.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition of Rs. 18.14 lakhs as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 was justified, given the assessee's claim of inter-book transfers.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A’’BENCH: BANGALORE
Before: SHRI B. R. BASKARAN & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE
PER B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
The appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order dated 30.3.2018 passed by Ld. CIT(A) Gulbarga and it relates to assessment year 2013-14.
None appeared on behalf of the revenue. We heard Ld. A.R. and perused the record.
Mr. Sunil Kumar Lakhotia, Hospet
The issue contested in this appeal is with regard to the addition of Rs.18.14 lakhs made by the A.O. u/s 68 of the Act which was confirmed by Ld. CIT(A).
The facts relating to the issue are that the assessee is a businessman carrying on two businesses. 1) Gaurav Trade Lines - Trading of Limestone 2) Shri Balaji Carriers - Transport business Besides the above, the assessee is also receiving remuneration from M/s. SRC Chemicals Pvt. Ltd, Dividend from shares and interest income from bank. The assessee claims to have maintained separate books of account for these receipts also, i.e., the assessee has maintained three separate books of accounts for all the 3 activities referred above, i.e., two business concerns and one Personal books. It is stated that the return of income was filed by consolidating the financial statements as a whole.
The A.O. noticed that the assessee has introduced additional capital of Rs.91.75 lakhs during the year under consideration. Accordingly, he asked the assessee to explain the sources for Rs.91.75 lakhs. The assessee explained that he used to transfer funds from personal books to business books and also from one business to another business. In the books from which payment is made, it will be shown as investment and in the books of business concern, which receives money, it will be shown as additional capital. Accordingly, it was submitted that the additional capital, in fact, represents inter-book transfers only. It was submitted that the total source available with the assessee in Personal books is Rs.1,32,33,979/- out of which Rs.91,75,000/- was transferred to other business concerns. However, the A.O. took a figure of Rs.79.60 lakhs as the amount drawn by the assessee and deducted
Mr. Sunil Kumar Lakhotia, Hospet Page 3 of 4 a sum of Rs.6 lakhs from it and accordingly accepted sources to the tune of Rs.73.60 lakhs. Accordingly, he treated the remaining amount of Rs.18.17 lakhs as unexplained cash credit and assessed the same. The Ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the same. At the time of hearing, the Ld A.R expressed his inability to explain as to how the AO took the figure of Rs.79.60 lakhs as sources.
The Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee has not introduced any fresh capital and all the funds have been transferred from one concern to another concern. He submitted that the assessee would be in a position to explain the same to the satisfaction of the A.O., if an opportunity is given to the assessee.
We find merit in the prayer of Ld. A.R. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and restore this issue to the file of the A.O. for examining it afresh. The assessee is also directed to furnish the reconciliation statement, information and explanations to the satisfaction of the A.O. and cooperate with him for expeditious completion of the assessment. After affording adequate opportunity to the assessee, the A.O. may take appropriate decision in accordance with law.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes, Order pronounced in the open court on 14-08-2020 Sd/- Sd/- (Pavan Kumar Gadale) (B.R. Baskaran) Judicial Member Accountant Member Bangalore, Dated 14th Aug, 2020. VG/SPS
Mr. Sunil Kumar Lakhotia, Hospet
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026