DATTATRAY SARJERAO DHAMAL,SATARA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4, SATARA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3043/PUN/2017Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 December 2018AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the amount was received and repaid by cheque, but the assessee failed to establish the creditworthiness of the loan creditor. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 10 lakhs under Section 69A for alleged cash deposits. The CIT(A) upheld this addition after deleting a part of the original addition. The assessee contended that the amount was received and repaid by cheque, not cash.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition under Section 69A was justified when the transaction was by cheque, and the creditworthiness of the loan creditor was not established.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 154,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

For Appellant: Shri Vikas Agarwal
For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali
Hearing: 31.12.2018Pronounced: 31.12.2018

आदेश / ORDER

PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM:

The appeal filed by assessee is against order of CIT(A)-4, Pune, dated 03.10.2017 relating to assessment year 2014-15 against order passed under section 154 r.w.s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

2.

The assessee has raised the following ground of appeal:- 1. The learned Assessing Officer & CIT(A) IV erred in the facts and in law in confirming an addition of Rs.10,00,000/- u/s 69A of the ITA, 1961 without considering cash book of the appellant.

ITA No.3043/PUN/2017 2 Dattatray S. Dhamal

3.

The only issue raised in the present appeal is against addition of ₹ 10 lakhs under section 69A of the Act.

4.

Briefly, in the facts of the case, the Assessing Officer passed an order under section 143(3) of the Act, wherein as against declared income of ₹ 3,69,280/-, assessed income was 43,35,762/-. The aforesaid additions were made in the hands of assessee because of non-cooperation of assessee before the Assessing Officer. One addition made under section 69A of the Act was totaling ₹ 34,67,256/- on account of cash deposits in the bank account.

5.

The CIT(A) has deleted the addition of ₹ 24,77,440/- vide order passed under section 154 of the Act, after passing the order under section 250 of the Act and balance addition of ₹ 10 lakhs has been upheld in the hands of assessee. The alleged addition has been made on account of alleged cash deposited in the bank account with Pune Peoples Bank, Khandala Branch. Both the authorities below have made the aforesaid addition as the assessee has failed to explain the source of cash deposit of ₹ 10 lakhs.

6.

The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee before the Tribunal pointed out that the perusal of bank account placed at page 20 onwards of Paper Book would show that as on 01.11.2013, cheque of ₹ 10 lakhs was deposited in the bank account of assessee, which admittedly is not cash deposit. Before the CIT(A), the assessee has also explained that the said amount was repaid on 25.01.2014 through bank transfer out of another account of assessee with Satara DCC Bank, copy of which is placed at pages 23 and 24 of Paper Book.

7.

The perusal of two bank statements clearly reflects that the amount was received vide cheque and was also repaid vide cheque. The CIT(A) in para

ITA No.3043/PUN/2017 3 Dattatray S. Dhamal

5.3.3 observes that it is not clear whether the loan was taken in cash or cheque. The assessee had also filed confirmation from Mr. Amir Ahmed Kazi, which is placed at page 25 of Paper Book. Admittedly, in the said confirmation letter, the details of cheque mentioned are not there. However, the assessee has mentioned PAN number of himself and not of the person from whom the loan was taken. The assessee though has filed confirmation but has failed to establish the creditworthiness of the person advancing loan. In the light of the same, we deem it fit to restore this issue back to the file of Assessing Officer for limited purpose of verifying the creditworthiness of loan creditor. Reasonable opportunity of hearing shall be provided to the assessee. The ground of appeal raised by assessee is thus, allowed for statistical purposes.

8.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in open Court on this 31st day of December, 2018.

Sd/- Sd/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ऱेखा सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्याययक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER ऩुणे / Pune; ददनाांक Dated : 31st December, 2018. GCVSR आदेश की प्रयतलऱपप अग्रेपषत/Copy of the Order is forwarded to : 1. अऩीऱाथी / The Appellant; प्रत्यथी / The Respondent; 2. 3. आयकर आयुक्त(अऩीऱ) / The CIT(A)-4, Pune; 4. The Pr.CIT-3, Pune; ववभागीय प्रतततनधध, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, ऩुणे, एक-सदस्य 5. मामऱा / DR ‘SMC’, ITAT, Pune; गार्ड पाईऱ / Guard file. 6. आदेशािुसार/ BY ORDER, सत्यावऩत प्रतत //True Copy// वररष्ठ तनजी सधिव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण ,ऩुणे / ITAT, Pune

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →