Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU & SHRI N.S. SAINI
This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 02.03.2015 of the Ld. CIT(Appeals), Rohtak relevant to assessment year 2011-12 on the following grounds of appeal: 1. “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 77,25,921/- made on account of unexplained cash deposits in two bank accounts maintained by the assessee with ICICI bank.
2. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, modify, delete or change the above ground on or before the date of hearing.”
2. The brief facts of the case are that assessee filed its return of income declaring at Rs. 1,60,000/- on 30.3.2012 which was later processed. The case of the assessee was later selected for scrutiny under CASS and statutory notice u/s. 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued on 1.8.2012. Notice u/s. 142(1) alongwith detailed questionnaire was issued on 24.7.2013 fixing the case for 6.8.2013. No compliance was made to these notices. Notice u/s. 142(1) / reminder was again issued on 14.10.2013 fixing the case for 23.10.2013. On 18.10.2013, the AR of the assessee attended the proceedings and filed the reply. But after that the case was fixed many times, but none attended nor any written reply was filed. The AO observed that as per the AIR information the assessee had made the cash deposits exceeding Rs. 10 lakhs amounting to Rs. 52,89,100/- in ICICI Bank at Rohtak during the financial year 2010-11 relevant to the assessment year 2011-12. As per documents submitted during the course of assessment proceedings it was observed that the assessee is maintaining two bank accounts with ICICI Bank and made the deposits of Rs. 77,25,921/-. As the assessee has offered no sustainable documentary evidence explaining the source of deposits made in the aforesaid bank accounts as such the entire deposits of Rs. 77,25,921/- was added to the returned income of the assessee as income from undisclosed sources and income was assessed at Rs. 78,85,921/- vide order dated 21.02.2014 u/s. 143(3) of the Act.
Against the assessment order, the assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order dated 02.03.2015 has deleted the addition in dispute and allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved with the impugned order the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal.
Ld. DR relied upon the order of the AO and stated as the assessee has offered no sustainable documentary evidence explaining the source of deposits made in the bank accounts and as such the entire deposits of Rs. 77,25,921/- was added to the income of the assessee.
On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and stated that he has passed a well reasoned order which does not need any interference.
After hearing both the parties and perusing the records especially the impugned order. We find that the additions in case have been made amounting to Rs. 77,25,921/- on account of all credit entries in two accounts held with ICICI Bank. We note that the assessee submitted his explanation at the remand stage of remand proceedings before the AO stating that the cash deposits emanated out of freight income from his transportation business, cash, gifts, sale of buffaloes and sale of agricultural produce. The AO in his remand report has, while examining the source of deposits, not found anything adverse in respect of receipts stated to be on account of freight received. The AO’s objection is only on account of ‘huge’ receipts. This has not been substantiated by evidence that the receipts shown are false. As far as agricultural produce is concerned, the assessee has submitted the Fard Jamabandi and Intkal of the ancestral agricultural land. The donor of the gift being the grandmother of the assessee has certified the same by virtue of an affidavit. Hence, Ld. CIT(A) has rightly observed that the explanations preferred by the assessee are tangible. Therefore, he correctly deleted the addition of Rs. 77,25,921/- made by the AO, which does not need any interference on our part, hence, we uphold the action of the Ld. CIT(A) and accordingly, dismiss the ground raised by the Revenue.
In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed.