What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not fully explain the genuineness of withdrawals being redeposited, but the revenue also failed to prove otherwise. Therefore, a lump sum addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- was deemed just and proper.

The assessee deposited Rs. 19.19 lakhs in cash. The Assessing Officer treated Rs. 6,80,000/- of these deposits as unexplained, linking them to earlier withdrawals. This was upheld by the lower appellate authority.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits made by the assessee were sufficiently explained by prior withdrawals, and the extent of unexplained cash to be added to income.

Jaya Vinod Sancheti, Nashik vs ITO | ITAT Pune 2022

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE

Before: SHRI S. S. GODARA

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. Shingte

For Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani

Hearing: 25.07.2022Pronounced: 25.07.2022

ORDER

PER S. S. GODARA, JM:

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2014-15 arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi’s order dated 29.07.2021 passed in case no.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021- 22/103450367(1) involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

Coming to the assessee’s sole substantive grievance that both the learned lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in Rs.19.19 lakhs as unexplained to the extent of Rs.6,80,000/-, it is noticed with the able assistance of both the parities that the Assessing Officer’s assessment order dated 23.12.2016 has duly tabulated the said four instances of cash deposits as well as the corresponding source(s) explained as the withdrawals made in August, 2013, November, 2013 vis-à-vis the deposits made on 10.09.2013, 05.12.2013, 14.03.2014 and 20.03.2014; respectively. Learned Assessing Officer therefore treated Rs.2,00,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.1,90,000/- each as unexplained which has been upheld in the lower appellate findings. 3. I have given my thoughtful consideration to rival submissions and find no reason to express concurrence with either one of them in entirety. This is on account of the fact that neither the assessee has been able to explain the genuineness element of its earlier withdrawals getting re-deposited on all four occasions nor the department could highlight anything to the contrary in the taxpayer’s cash flow in issue. Face with this situation, I deem it appropriate that a lump sum addition of Rs.2,00,000/- only would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.

JAYA VINOD SANCHETI,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -2(2), NASHIK

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments