Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI N. K. SAINI & MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE
This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order dated 08/1/2016 passed by CIT(A)-14, New Delhi Assessment Year 2011-12.
The grounds of appeal are as under:-
On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law CIT(A) has erred in:-
“1. Not affording the opportunity to the A.O to present his case before admitting the explanation of the assessee regarding source of cash deposits, without verifying the supporting documents related to it and not appreciating the fact that the assessee did not file any supporting documents before the A.O during the assessment proceedings.
2. Deleting the addition of Rs.48,23,640/- made by the A.O on account f unexplained cash deposits.
The assessee e-filed his return of income for the Assessment Year 2011- 12 declaring the total income of Rs.40,21,752/- on 26/9/2011. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS and the Assessing Officer made addition u/s 68 & 69 C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for an amount of Rs.48,23,640/- for unexplained cash deposits and Rs.6,68,594/- for unexplained expenditure on the ground that no documentary evidence was produced by the Assessee.
The assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. The CIT(A) held as under:-
“I have considered the submissions of the appellant as well as the findings of the Ld. AO, higher appellate authorities and the Hon’ble Courts. I incline to agree with the contention of the appellant that the Ld/- AO is not justified in making the addition amounting to Rs. 48,23,640/- u/s 68 of Act on account of unexplained cash credits. The said cash deposits to the syndicate bank account no. 88932200031596 were either out of the earned cash income or out of the cash withdrawals from the bank account In view of the following facts and circumstances of the appellant’s case:-
(i) It is evident from the above chart that there are documentary evidences showing the detailed cash book of the assessee wherein the narration and explanation for each entry has been inculcated. (ii) The Ld. AR has submitted the copies of ITR-V, computation for AY 2011-12, Form 26AS, Form 16. (iii) The Ld. AR has also filed a tabular representation for the various sources of cash deposits along with their nature and source. In the above chart the source of each cash deposit has been explained and none of the cash deposit in the year is unexplained.
In view of the above discussion the addition amounting to Rs. 48,23,640/- u/s 68 of Act on account of unexplained cash credits deserves to be deleted. I ordered accordingly, the ground of appeal is allowed.”
The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer and submitted that the Revenue is in appeal relating to addition of Rs.48,23,640/- u/s 68 of the Act on account of unexplained cash credits. The CIT(A) without looking into the direct nexus between the cash deposits in the bank has deleted the addition. In-fact, the CIT(A) has not given the opportunity to the Assessing Officer for giving his remand report.
We have heard the Ld. DR and perused all the records since the assessee was not present despite giving notice, we hereby take up the submissions of the assessee made before the CIT(A) as the arguments on behalf of the assessee. The same has been reproduce in CIT(A)’s order. The assessee has given all the details of cash deposits and explained that certain amount of the assessee was filed in original returns of income which was before the Assessing Officer. No new documents were filed by the Assessee before the CIT(A). In- fact, the balance-sheet was before the Assessing Officer in respect of giving the cash deposits and the same was also verified by the Assessing Officer at the time of assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer at no point of time has issued summons to those parties. Thus, the observation of the Assessing Officer that the assessee failed to provide any documentary evidence/details was properly dealt by the CIT(A). In facts, the CIT(A) has given the detailed chart of the assessee’s transactions wherein all the cash deposit were explained by the assessee. The CIT(A) has rightly deleted the said addition after taking into account that all the details which were field before the Assessing Officer explaining the cash deposits/cash credits. There is no need to interfere with the order of CIT(A).
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.