MR.HASMUKH D. PATEL,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 1(5), KALYAN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5120/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 November 2019AY 2012-134 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer dismissed the assessee's explanation without proper examination or specific reasons. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided details regarding the source of the cash deposits. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee deposited Rs. 11,20,000/- in cash into their bank account. The Assessing Officer treated this as unexplained cash credit and made an addition to the total income. The assessee provided explanations and supporting documents for the source of the cash.

What were the issues?

Whether the cash deposits in the bank account were sufficiently explained by the assessee, and if the Assessing Officer's rejection of the explanation was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya
For Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria
Hearing: 29/08/2019Pronounced: 25/11/2019

PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

1.

This appeal by the assessee is directed against order of learned CIT(A) dated 03.05.2018 and pertains to assessment year 2012-13.

2.

The ground of appeal is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming and treating Rs.11,20,000/- as unexplained cash credits in view of section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and thereby erred in adding the same to the total income of the assessee. The Assessing Officer in this case made an addition of Rs.11,20,000/- on the ground that these are cash deposits in assessee’s bank account without proper explanation. The assessee’s explanation in this regard

Hasmukh D. Patel were rejected by the Assessing Officer without any examination by holding them to be not convincing. We may gainfully refer to the order of the Assessing Officer in this regard as under :-

“5. From I.T.S. details, it is seen that assessee has deposited cash of Rs.11,20,000/- in State Bank of India, Bhiwandi Branch. During the course of assessment proceedings. During the course of assessment proceedings, the sources of deposit of Rs.11,20,000/- was asked to which assessee has filed a letter dated 12.03.2015 in which it is stated as under : I have been running two firms namely : 1) M/s. Ashapura Sizers 2) M/s. Sukhsagar Builders and developers (u/s 44AD) I am running two different business and tax is paid on income of the both of them. I assessed to Income tax since last 20 years. Sir old case is pending with the CESTAT i.e. Tribunal of the Excise department. The case has been going on for last 10 years and outcome of the case is quite uncertain. However, I was of the view that the case will end in our favour and so I had decided to go for further litigation. So to proceed for further stage of appeal, I had to pay certain deposit to the Government for the cash was deposited in my S.B.I A/c As shown by me in my personal cash account adequate cash was available with me. Besides I had withdrawn capital for Rs.4,00,000/- from my firm M/s. Sukh Sagar Developers. A copy of cash books of both the business and my personal cash is produced herewith. Sir, I had to do this arrangement to meet and clear the Tax Deposit of Excise Department of Rs.15 lakhs.

6. The explanation offered by the assessee is not fully convincing, I therefore make addition of Rs.11,20,000/- to the total income u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act 1961 being cash deposited in State Bank of India. As the assessee has concealed/furnished in accurate particulars of his income, penalty proceedings u/s 274 r.w.w 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act 1961 is initiated.”

3.

Upon assessee’s appeal, learned CIT(A) confirmed the addition. Against this order, assessee is in appeal before us.

4.

We have heard both the counsel and perused the records. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee has duly submitted the source of cash before the authorities below. He submitted the necessary details in the paper book before us. His submission in this regard are as under:-

“Sr. Name Amount in Remarks Paper No. Rs. Book Pg. No. 1 M/s. Sukhsagar 4,00,000/- Own firm 45 Developers 2 Umiya Shakti 60,000/- Rent 2 3 Ashapura Sizers 60,000/- Own firm 31-36/13 4 Hasmukh Patel 1,50,000/- Self withdrawal 40/52 self deposit 5 Hasmukh Patel 5,00,000/- Previous year 26 balance TOTAL 11,70,000/-

Thus, the assessee under section 69A has explained the source of cash deposits as above. The assessee has brought on record evidence to establish his claims in the paper book that the deposits in the SBI Bank, was out of receipts connected with his business transactions, rent income, cash withdrawals and previous year balances.”

Referring to the above learned counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee has duly submitted the details and the Assessing Officer has rejected the same without examination by holding them to be unconvincing. Per contra, the learned DR relied upon the orders of authorities below.

Hasmukh D. Patel 5. Upon careful consideration, we find that assessee has given the source of cash deposit to the Assessing Officer. He has explained that the amounts were sourced from cash book of the assessee’s two concerns. The Assessing Officer has found the same unconvincing. There is nothing on record as to which was the entry the Assessing Officer found to be unconvincing. In our considered opinion, the dismissal of assessee’s explanation without any detail by surmise and conjecture is not permissible law. Accordingly, we set-aside the orders of the authorities below and delete the addition.

6.

In the result, the appeal by the assessee stands allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 25th November, 2019.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →