SRI P BHUDEVA REDDY ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

Per Jason P Boaz, Accountant Member

2.1 The assessee, an individual deriving income from salary received as Manager of M/s. Cotton World, filed his return of income for Assessment Year 2008-09 on 22.7.2008 declaring total income of Rs.3,84,759/-. The assessee’s case was taken up for scrutiny in the year under consideration. In the course of assessment proceedings,

Page 2 of 5 the assessee was required to explain the source of cash deposits made in his bank accounts with Karur Vysya Bank and Axis Bank, which was furnished to the assessing officer (‘AO’). The AO was not convinced with the explanations put forth by the assessee in respect of certain cash deposits to the extent of Rs.1,25,700/- and accordingly concluded the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 13.12.2010, wherein the assessee’s income was determined at Rs.5,10,640/- on account of the addition of unexplained cash credits in his bank accounts amounting to Rs.1,25,700/-.

2.2 Aggrieved by the order of assessment dated 13.12.2010 for Assessment Year 2008-09, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A)-12, Bangalore. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal vide order dated 2.7.2018 holding that the assessee had not filed any evidence for proving the source of these cash deposits.

The orders of the authorities below in so far as they are against the appellant 1. are opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the case.

The learned CIT[A] is not justified in upholding the addition of Rs.1,25,700/- 2. being the aggregate of the deposits made in the bank account from out of earlier withdrawals from the bank accounts, which were made to meet the emergency medical needs of the appellant's mother-in-law, which on reimbursement came to be re-deposited in the bank accounts. The rejection of the explanation is unreasonable and is purely out of suspicion and surmise, assumptions and presumptions and accordingly vitiated.

Without prejudice to the above, even in extreme case of rejection of 3. explanation, the learned A.O. ought to have taken the peak of the deposits of the bank account and after giving credit to the deposits by way of salary, etc., and the income returned instead of the aggregate of such bank deposits in the bank accounts.

The addition is purely on suspicion and surmise, assumption and presumptions 4. and requires to be deleted.

5. Without prejudice to the right to seek waiver with the Hon'ble CCIT/DG, the appellant denies himself liable to be charged to interestd-2-34-----B of the Act, which under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case deserves to be cancelled.

5.2 Per contra, the learned DR for Revenue supported the orders of the authorities below.

5.3 Having considered the rival contentions and carefully perused the material on record, I find that the assessee is only a salaried employee and apparently does not carry on any business or profession. His source of income as being only from salary to the extent of Rs.5,99,045/- is not disputed by the authorities below and as per the copies of bank accounts/statements examined by the authorities below, there are cash withdrawals to the tune of Rs.3,20,900/- therefrom in the year under consideration. The assessee’s contention is that the aforesaid cash withdrawn was for the medical expenses of his mother-in-law and later being received back from his father-in-law was re-deposited in his bank account. The assessee’s father-in-law, a retired government pensioner, from the details filed also seems to be a man having the means to repay the said amount of cash of Rs.1,25,700/- deposited by the assessee in his bank accounts. In the factual matrix of the case on hand, as laid out above, the explanations/details furnished by the assessee appears to be bonafide and acceptable. In my considered view, there is no reason to suspect the genuineness of the assessee’s claim since the extent of cash withdrawals far exceed the cash deposits made, even if for some reason the version of the assessee having received money from his father- in-law has to be disbelieved. In this view of the matter, the addition made in the order

Page 5 of 5 of assessment of Rs.1,25,700/- as unexplained cash credits, is deleted. Consequently, ground Nos. 2 to 4 of assessee’s appeal are allowed.

6 . Ground No. 5 – Charge of interest u/s 234A and 234B of the Act 6.1 In this ground, the assessee denies himself liable to be charged interest u/s 234A and 234B of the Act. The charging of interest is consequential and mandatory and the assessee has no discretion in the matter. This proposition has been upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Anjum H. Ghaswala in 252 ITR 1 (SC) and I therefore uphold the action of the AO in charging the said interest. The AO is however directed to re-compute the interest chargeable u/s 234A and 234B of the Act, if any, while giving effect to this order.

Pronounced in the open court on this 14th day of November, 2018.