SHRI SAMAR PODDAR,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-55(4), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 897/KOL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 November 2019AY 2014-152 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged the wife's credits as the source but noted the lack of prior submission to the AO. A lump sum addition of Rs. 1,00,000 was deemed to meet the ends of justice.

What were the facts?

The assessee explained cash deposits in his bank account as originating from his wife's credits. However, this explanation was not provided to the Assessing Officer for verification.

What were the issues?

Whether the lower authorities were justified in adding unexplained cash deposits when the assessee provided a source, albeit not to the AO.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA

Before: Sri S. S. Godara]

For Appellant: Shri I. Banerjee, FCA
Hearing: 11/11/2019Pronounced: 15/11/2019

[Before Sri S. S. Godara, Judicial Member] आयकर अपीलसं./ (�नधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Sri Samar Poddar Vs. ITO, Ward-55(4), Kolkata 8/1, Jadav Chandra Ghosh Lane, Kolkata- 700036. �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AHXPP0276F (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri I. Banerjee, FCA Respondent by : Shri Dhrubajyoti Ray, JCIT, Sr. DR सुनवाई क� तार�ख/ Date of Hearing : 11/11/2019 घोषणा क� तार�ख/Date of Pronouncement : 15/11/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2014-15 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (A) - 17, Kolkata order dated 06.12.2018 passed in case No.19/CIT(A)-17/Kol/17-18 involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

The assessee’s sole substantive grievance raised in the instant appeal seeks to reverse both the lower authorities’ action adding alleged unexplained cash deposits of Rs.3,95,000/-. I make it clear at the outset that there is no dispute about the assessee’s cash deposits in principle. His only case is that he had filed written submissions/records indicating his wife Smt. Chinmoyee Podder’s credits as source of cash deposits on 22.04.2013, 02.05.2013, 13.05.2013 & 16.05.2013 involving sum(s) of Rs.1,00,000/- each in former two, Rs.45,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/- respectively. The CIT(A) has nowhere rebutted the said factual position in the lower appellate order under challenge. The fact also remains that although the assessee has been maintaining the joint bank account in issue, the above explanation to this effect was nowhere placed before the Assessing Officer for the purpose of factual verification. I deem it appropriate in this peculiar factual backdrop that a lump sum addition of Rs.1,00,000/- would meet the ends of justice with a rider that same shall not be treated as a precedent in any other case. The assessee gets relief of Rs.2,95,000/-. Necessary computation to follow as per law.

3.

This assessee's appeal is partly allowed in above terms.

Order is pronounced in the open court on 15.11.2019.

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →