KUSUM DAGA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-44(2), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 292/KOL/2020Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 July 2021AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's order lacked discussion on the evidence provided by the assessee. Therefore, to ensure justice, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment with an opportunity for the assessee to present all necessary evidence.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 12,73,000/- on account of cash deposits into the assessee's bank account, treating it as unexplained cash credit. The assessee claimed the deposits were from sales, except for Rs. 1,96,000/- which was a withdrawal, but failed to provide evidence for both.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained cash credit was justified without proper consideration of the assessee's evidence. Whether the assessee was given a fair opportunity to present her case before the Assessing Officer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC”

Before: Sri Sanjay Garg

order : July 06, 2021 ORDER The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee for the assessment year 2013-14 against the order dated 12.09.2019 of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-13, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’).

2.

The assessee, in this appeal, has taken the following grounds of appeal: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming addition of Rs.12,73,000/- made by the Assessing officer on account of cash deposits into the bank account by wrongly treating the same as Unexplained Cash credit Under Sec. 68 of the Income Tax Act,1961.

1.

2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) while sustaining the above addition has arbitrarily and, mechanically rejected the explanation and evidence tendered by the appellant and made the addition by drawing subjective, premeditated and preconceived inferences therefore the same is not sustainable.

3. That the appellant craves leave to submit additional grounds of appeal, if any, at or before the time of hearing and /or alter, modify, reframe any grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing.”

3. The brief facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer has found certain cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee on different dates aggregating to Assessment Year: 2013-14 Kusum Daga Rs.12,73,000/-. On being asked to explain in this respect, the assessee explained that she was in the business of trading of clothes and the aforesaid deposits were out of sales amount received by the assessee on different dates except Rs.1,96,000/-. It was explained that the amount of Rs.1,96,000/- was withdrawn from the bank account. However, the assessee could not furnish the evidence of withdrawal of the amount of Rs.1,96,000/- from the bank. In so far as the claim of the assessee that the deposits were made out of the sale price received, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has failed to submit necessary documentary evidence in this respect. He, therefore, made the addition of the entire amount of Rs.12,73,000/- as income from undisclosed sources.

4. Before the ld. CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition so made by the Assessing Officer. The assessee thus has come in appeal before this Tribunal.

5.

The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee was having a running account with the suppliers of the materials. The ld. Counsel has invited my attention to the paper-book pages 17 onwards and has relied upon the bills and vouchers and as well as the account statement and the confirmation received from the different parties from whom the purchases were made. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee has duly maintained her accounts and has also maintained stock register and that the assessee has furnished relevant evidences to show that the purchases were made out of the funds available with the assessee and thereafter the sales were made, the proceeds of which are deposited in the bank account. He has submitted that the ld. Assessing Officer has failed to properly appreciate the evidences on the file.

6.

The ld. DR, on the other hand, has relied upon the findings of the lower authorities.

7.

I have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the assessment order shows that the Assessing Officer has not made any discussion in his order about the evidences furnished by the assessee in the shape of bills and vouchers and accounts as well as confirmation from the parties. In my view, the interest of justice will be well-served if the assessee is given an opportunity to present her case before the Assessing Officer with 2

Assessment Year: 2013-14 Kusum Daga all the necessary evidences. In view of this, the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. The appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →