SMT. PADMA SAMSON,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORP WARD 19 (1), CHENNAI

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 12, Chennai, dated 21.11.2017 relevant to the assessment year 2011-12. In the grounds of appeal, the assessee has challenged the order of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition made towards unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short].

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed her return of income on 05.08.2011 for the assessment year 2011-12 admitting total income of ₹.9,73,420/-. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny. Against statutory notice assessee furnished the details and on verification of the details, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act by treating the peak negative figures of ₹.21,03,000/- as income under section 68 of the Act and brought to tax. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) challenging the additions made under section 68 of the Act. However, since the assessee could not furnish any evidence, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition.

On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. After analysing the bank statement of account of Indian Bank, the authorities below have observed that there is a negative peak balance of ₹.8,03,000/- on 25.08.2010. Similarly, the account in CCC Bank shows a peak negative balance of ₹.13,00,000/- on 23.08.2010. In this bank account, the assessee deposited cash of ₹.2,00,000/- on 04.06.2010, ₹.2.00,000/- on 05.06.2010, ₹.4,00,000/- on 17.06.2010, ₹.2,00,000/- on 17.08.2010 and ₹.3,00,000/- on 23.08.2010. During the course of appellate proceedings, the AR of the assessee has stated that the assessee is unable to produce any further details or proof in support of the cash received by her from colleagues and also gifts for son’s marriage. However, before the ld. CIT(A), the AR of the assessee has submitted an undated letter stated to be written by the assessee’s father that he has given ₹.3,00,000/- on 01.08.2010 and ₹.4,00,000/- on 04.08.2010 to the assessee, where, the source has been explained as from agricultural income, which amounts are not at all matching with the deposits made by the assessee in her bank account. We find that before the ld. CIT(A) vide letter dated 15.11.2017, the AR of the assessee has made the above submissions and further stated that the father of the assessee is not assessed to income tax. Once the father of the assessee is not an income tax assessee and no return of income was filed, the agricultural income so claimed to have been given to the assessee cannot be legally acceptable. However, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has prayed that the assessee may be given a final opportunity to file necessary evidence and confirmation from parties, from whom the assessee made cash transactions. In view of the above and to meet the ends of justice, we remit the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer to consider the submissions, evidences as may be furnished by the assessee and decide the issue afresh in accordance with law by allowing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In case, if the assessee fails to furnish confirmation and concrete evidences, as may be required in this case, the appellate order passed by the ld. CIT(A) stands confirmed.

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