Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘ A’ BENCH : CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI S.JAYARAMAN
आदेश / O R D E R
PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-5, Chennai in ITA No.256/C.I.T(A)-5/2017-18 dated 25.07.2018 for the assessment year 2015-16.
Shri D.Anand represented on behalf of the Assessee and Shri AR.V.Sreenivasan represented on behalf of the Revenue.
It was submitted by ld.AR that assessee is an individual, who is doing the business of indenting agent for import of paper. It was a submission that in the course of demonetization period, the assessee had made a cash deposit of Rs.3,37,40,770/- in his current account.
The sources for the deposits were verified with the documents furnished such as Bills of entry, bank statement with a detailed nature of his business. It was submitted that the evidences produced were accepted and no unaccounted income was found in the hands of assessee. It was further submitted that however, the Assessing Officer had questioned the opening balance of the capital in the assessee”s hand, which had been claimed by the assessee to be out of his past savings being opening balance, which was shown as Rs.25,12,359/-.
Under the scheme of PMGKY-2016, the assessee had disclosed an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- and paid the tax thereon. For the balance of Rs.5,12,369/-, the assessee had shown adequate source , as per the Assessing Officer for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15, totaling to Rs.3,16,390/-. The Assessing Officer did not accept the assessee’s claim in respect of balance of Rs.1,95,969/-, which had been claimed by the assessee as past savings. It was submitted that evidences had been produced explaining his past saving, but the same had been treated as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act and added to the total income for impugned assessment year without giving any reason. It was a prayer that addition of Rs.1,95,969/- added as unexplained cash credit be deleted in the interest of justice.
In reply, the ld.DR vehemently supported the orders of the Assessing Officer and the ld.CIT(A).
We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. A perusal of the facts and balance sheet clearly shows that the assessee has been able to explain the sums credited in his bank account, which is also accepted by the Assessing Officer. Only in regard to the opening balance of a amount of Rs.1,95,969/- is being challenged by the Assessing Officer as unexplained cash credit, out of an amount of Rs.25,12,359/-. It is an accepted fact that the assessee has made profits in the earlier years and the balance sheet, profit and loss account as produced by the assessee clearly shows savings. The assessee’s bank account came to be questioned only on account of cash deposit of Rs.3,37,40,770/- in his bank current account during the demonetization drive. No fault in the accounts of the assessee has been pointed out. This being so, we are of the view that the claim of assessee for having savings of Rs.1,95,969/- cannot be faulted and consequently, the addition as made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) stands deleted.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.