ALOK BHATNAGAR,MEERUT vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MEERUT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1213/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 June 2019AY 2014-154 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that if the additional income of Rs. 39,25,000/- offered by the assessee before the Settlement Commission is found to be correct, it would be available to the assessee for making the deposits, thus avoiding double addition. The matter was restored to the AO for verification.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 19,47,000/- on the grounds that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of cash deposited in bank accounts. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition. The assessee claimed the cash was from their available balance.

What were the issues?

Whether the cash deposits in bank accounts were genuine and adequately explained by the assessee's available funds, considering the income offered before the Settlement Commission.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES “SMC”: DELHI

Before: SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI

Hearing: 04.06.2019Pronounced: 04.06.2019

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “SMC”: DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.No.1213/Del./2018 Assessment Year 2014-2015 Mr. Alok Bhatnagar, The DCIT, C-111, Samrat Palace, Central Circle, Aayakar vs., Garh Road, Meerut. Bhawan, Bhainsali PIN – 250 002 Ground, Delhi Road, PAN ACXPB9678A Meerut – 250 001. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri K. Sampath And Shri V. Rajkumar, Advocates For Revenue : Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 04.06.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 04.06.2019 ORDER

This appeal by Assessee has been directed against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A)-4, Kanpur, Dated 08.12.2017 for the A.Y. 2014-2015, challenging the addition of Rs.19,47,000/-.

2.

Briefly the facts of the case are that assessee filed return of income declaring income of Rs.6,06,530/-. The A.O. noted that assessee has earned income from salary,

2 ITA.No.1213/Del./2018 Mr. Alok Bhatnagar, Meerut. house property, business and profession and other sources, details of which are mentioned at page-2 of the assessment order. The A.O. also noted that assessee has outstanding loans from loans of Allahabad Bank in assessment year under appeal as well as earlier years. The assessee has paid interest and noted total repayment during the year of Rs.12,98,000/-. The assessee pleaded before A.O. that assessee had deposited loan amount out of cash balance available with the assessee. The A.O. however, did not accept the contention of assessee and considered that assessee failed to prove genuineness of the cash deposited in the Bank account. The A.O. accordingly made addition of Rs.19,47,000/-. The Ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the addition because assessee was failed to explain the source and nature of the cash deposited in Allahabad Bank and ICICI Bank of the impugned amount.

3.

Learned Counsel for the Assessee filed copy of the Order of the Settlement Commission and submitted that assessee has offered an income of Rs.39,25,000/- as income which was available with him and was the source of the 3 ITA.No.1213/Del./2018 Mr. Alok Bhatnagar, Meerut. cash found during the course of search from the residence of the assessee and this fact is accepted by the Settlement Commission. He has submitted that since assessee has declared additional income of Rs.39,25,000/- in assessment year under appeal, therefore, same is available to assessee to make deposit in the above Bank accounts. The set-off may be given subject to verification by the A.O.

4.

The Ld. D.R. also suggested that the matter may be restored to the file of A.O. for verifying this fact.

5.

Considering the submissions of the parties in the light of offer made by assessee before the Settlement Commission of additional income subject to tax of Rs.39,25,000/-, I am of the view that this fact may be verified by the A.O. In case the above facts explained by the Learned Counsel for the Assessee are found correct, assessee would be entitled for set-off of the same amount because the same additional income offered for tax before the Settlement Commission would be available to the assessee for making the deposit in the aforesaid Bank accounts of the impugned amount. In that event the 4 ITA.No.1213/Del./2018 Mr. Alok Bhatnagar, Meerut. addition would amount to double addition. In view of the above, I set aside the Orders of the authorities below and restore the matter in issue to the file of A.O. with a direction to re-decide this issue in the light of the Order of the Settlement Commission. Assessee is directed to file copy of the Order of the Settlement Commission before A.O. and other material to satisfy the A.O. in this regard. A.O. shall give reasonable, sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, before passing the Order.

6.

In the result, appeal of Assessee 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 →