R KAARTHIK KUMAAR,UDUMALPET vs. ITO, WARD -2(4), TIRUPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 81/CHNY/2018Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 December 2018AY 2013-144 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee's claim of receiving money from a friend for temporary custody was not considered by the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter needed reconsideration by the Assessing Officer.

What were the facts?

The assessee deposited money in their bank account, claiming it was from a friend due to a family dispute. This money was later returned to the friend. The Assessing Officer made an addition under Section 68 based on this credit.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made under Section 68 for unexplained credit in the bank account was justified, considering the assessee's explanation of temporary custody of funds from a friend.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ / SMC BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY

For Appellant: Shri N. Vijay Kumar, CA
For Respondent: Shri B. Sagadevan, JCIT
Hearing: 26.11.2018Pronounced: 03.12.2018

आदेश /O R D E R

PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Coimbatore, dated 16.11.2017 and pertains to assessment year 2013-14.

2.

The only issue arises for consideration is addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') in respect of credit found in the bank account of the assessee.

3.

Shri N. Vijay Kumar, the Ld. representative for the assessee, submitted that the assessee’s friend gave the money to the assessee since there was a family dispute in his family. Therefore, according to the Ld. representative, the assessee deposited the money received from his friend in the bank account. Subsequently, it was returned to the assessee’s friend. According to the Ld. representative, the assessee has filed necessary confirmation letter to show that what was deposited by the assessee in his bank account is the money belonging to his friend, hence, there cannot be any addition. This aspect was not considered by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, according to the Ld. representative, the matter may be remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer.

4.

We heard Shri B. Sagadevan, the Ld. Departmental Representative also. According to the Ld. D.R., since the assessee says that the money found in his bank account was received from his friend for temporary custody, the matter may be remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer for reconsideration.

5.

Having heard the Ld. representative for the assessee and the Ld. Departmental Representative, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the assessee now claims before this Tribunal that the money was received from his friend for temporary custody since there was a family disputed in the family of his friend.

This aspect was not considered by both the authorities below.

Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the matter needs to be reconsidered by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, orders of both the authorities below are set aside and the entire issue is remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall re-examine the matter in the light of the material that may be filed by the assessee and thereafter decide the issue afresh in accordance with law, after giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →