RAMAN BHURARIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 61(2), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 524/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 June 2018AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that an identical issue with similar facts had been decided in the assessee's own case for a prior assessment year. Following that precedent, the Tribunal set aside the order and remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged an addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act on account of cash deposited in a bank. The assessee argued that an identical issue with similar facts was decided in their favor for a previous assessment year.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits in a bank account are adequately explained by the assessee's cash book and other supporting documents. Whether the AO properly examined the cash book and other evidence provided by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. N. K. Saini

For Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Hearing: 07.06.2018Pronounced: 12.06.2018

ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 24.11.2017 of ld. CIT(A)-20, New Delhi. 2. The assessee has raised as many as 12 grounds but the main grievance relates to the sustenance of addition made by the AO u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on account of cash deposited in ICICI Bank amounting to Rs.21,48,390/-.

3.

During the course of hearing, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that an identical issue have similar facts has been adjudicated by the ITAT Delhi Bench ‘B’, New Delhi in for the assessment year 2011-12 vide order dated 21.04.2017 in assessee’s own case (copy of the said order was furnished which is placed on record).

1.

Raman Bhuraria 4. In her rival submissions, the ld. Sr. DR supported the orders of the authorities below.

5.

After considering the submissions of both the parties and the material on record, it is noticed that an identical issue having similar facts has already been adjudicated in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2011-12 in vide order dated 21.04.2017 wherein relevant findings have been given in para 6 which read as under: “6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant finding given in the impugned order as well as material referred to before us. The main dispute is with regard to the amount of cash deposited in the bank account of the assessee on various dates for sums aggregating to Rs. 21,50,000/- which has been added as unexplained cash credit u/s 68. The assessee's case has been that he has been maintaining regular books of account and also day to day cash book, wherein the entire generation of source as well as its utilization has been shown. These cash book itself constitutes the source of cash deposits made in the bank account. Before us, the Id. counsel to substantiate the assessee's case had referred and relied upon, firstly, cash flow statement for the year ending 31.3.2011; secondly, copy of bank accounts as maintained by the assessee; and lastly, the confirmations from M/s. Bhuraria Consultants Ltd. and from M/s. Raman Bhuraria and Associates that assessee has received the cash payments. If the assessee is maintaining day to day cash book and entire generation of cash received from various concerns in which the assessee is a partner or a director has been reflected therein, then definitely such availability of cash becomes source of cash deposits in the bank account. However, we find that neither the Assessing Officer nor the Learned CIT (Appeals) have examined the cash book stated to be maintained by the assessee on day to day basis along with regular books of account. If the cash withdrawals from bank account or cash received from two aforesaid concerns are tallied with the deposits made in the bank account on the various dates, then the same stands explained. But this matter needs

Raman Bhuraria proper examination by the Assessing Officer. Under these facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion the entire matter of cash deposits should go back to the file of the Assessing Officer who shall verify and examine the total availability of cash from various sources as stated by the assessee and to see whether these cash are recorded in the regular books of account on day to day basis in the cash book and also whether the cash as reflected in the cash book have been deposited in the bank account of the assessee. With this direction, we set aside the order of the Learned CIT( Appeals) and remit back the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide this issue afresh after giving proper opportunity to the assessee to explain his case. Thus the grounds raised by the assessee allowed for statistical purposes.”

6. Since, the facts for the year under consideration are similar to the facts involved in the aforesaid referred to order in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2011-12. So, respectfully following the aforesaid referred to order dated 21.04.2017, this issue is set aside to the file of the AO to be adjudicated afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

7.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. (Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 12/06/2018)

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →