MUJEEB ALAM RAJPUT,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(3)(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7363/MUM/2013Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 October 2019AY 2007-083 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were plausible business receipts of the assessee, especially in the absence of any other identified income source. Therefore, the entire cash credits could not be treated as unexplained income.

What were the facts?

The assessee declared income under section 44AF and deposited cash from garment sales into his bank account. The Assessing Officer added Rs. 12,39,457/- as unexplained cash credits under section 68.

What were the issues?

Whether cash credits in a bank account, explained as business receipts, can be added as unexplained income under Section 68 when the assessee is engaged in business under Section 44AF.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 44AF,Section 131

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri Mujeeb Alam Rajput (Assessee in person)
For Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik
Hearing: 18/09/2019Pronounced: 24/10/2019

ORDER

PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:

1.

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A) - 30, Mumbai dated 18/10/2013 for assessment year 2007-08.

2.

The assessee appearing in person submitted that assessee had declared income of Rs.1,03,500/- under section 44AF of the Income Tax Act,1961( herein after referred to as ‘the Act’)in the return. During the period relevant to the assessment year under appeal, the assessee was engaged in the business of trading in readymade garments. Certain cash amounts were deposited in the bank (ICICI Bank, Bandra(W) Branch) from sale proceeds of the garments. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.12,39,457/- under section 68 of the Act in respect of cash credits in the Bank Account. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) against the aforesaid addition. The appeal of the assessee was dismissed by CIT(A), hence, the present appeal.

3. Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik representing the Department vehemently defended the impugned order. The ld. Departmental Representative submitted that assessee had failed to explain cash credits in the saving bank account, therefore, the addition was sustained by the CIT(A),

3.

We have heard the submissions made by representatives of the rival sides and have perused the orders of the authorities below. Undisputedly, cash deposit to the tune of Rs.12,39,457/- were made in ICICI Bank account of the assessee. The addition of aforesaid cash deposits were made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 of the Act. The assessee in his return of income had declared business income computed under section 44AF of the Act. In assessment proceedings, the assessee in statement recorded under section 131 of the Act explained that the deposits in the bank are business receipts of the assessee. The Assessing Officer has not pointed any other source of income of the assessee, while making addition of unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Act. Explanation furnished by the assessee qua source of cash deposits in the absence of any other source of income is plausible. Thus, in the facts of the case we hold cash deposits in the bank account of assessee are his business receipts. Consequently, entire cash credits cannot be considered as income of the assessee. The cash credits in the bank being business receipts of the assessee are also subject to the provisions of section 44AF of the Act. The Assessing Officer is directed to treat cash credits as business receipts of the assessee and accordingly compute income of the assessee under section 44AF of the Act.

4.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →