SMT. PRAKRITI SENGUPTA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 41(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 402/KOL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 December 2018AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that a bank reconciliation statement for the year ending March 31, 2011, is crucial for proper reflection of facts. The issue was set aside to the Assessing Officer to examine the date of receipt and bank reconciliation statements.

What were the facts?

The assessee received Rs. 15 Lakhs as a loan via two cheques, which were deposited in her bank account before March 31, 2011. However, the entries for these receipts were inadvertently made in the books of accounts on April 1, 2011. The CIT(A) sustained the addition as the corresponding asset was not found in the balance sheet.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made under Section 68 was justified when the loan was received via cheque before the financial year-end but recorded in books later. The validity of the CIT(A)'s decision on a general ground raised 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, KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy]

Date of concluding the hearing : November 26th, 2018 Date of pronouncing the order : December 5th, 2018 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :-

This appeal filed by the assesse is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -13, (hereinafter the ‘ld. CIT (A)’), passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’), dt. 20/11/2017, for the Assessment Year 2012-13.

2.

We have heard rival contentions. On careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, perusal of the papers on record, orders of the authorities below as well as case law cited, we hold as follows:- 3. Ground No.1, is against the addition made u/s 68 of the Act. The assessee had received Rs.15 Lakhs as loan during the previous year by way of two cheques. The first being Rs.2,50,000/-, vide cheque no. 002459 deposited in the bank account on 15/12/2010 and Rs.12,50,000/-, for the account payee cheque no. 002710 deposited in the bank account on 31/03/2011 aggregating to Rs.15,00,000/- from M/s. Pasari Multi Projects Pvt. Ltd. Hence these cheques were credited by the assessee in its bank accounts prior to 31/03/2011 relevant to the Assessment Year 2010-11. The assessee claims that it received the money in question through account payee cheques but inadvertently the accountant of the assessee has not made entries of these cheque receipts. It was submitted that it

Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Prakriti Sengupta was on 01/04/2011 that these cheques were entered in the books of accounts of the assessee. On a query from the Assessing Officer, the ld. CIT(A) was of the view that the addition made by the Assessing Officer has to be sustained as the corresponding asset was not found in the balance sheet of the assessee. 3.1. In my view, unless a bank reconciliation statement is prepared for the year ending 31/03/2011, the facts would not be properly reflected. Thus, we set aside this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to examine the date of receipt of cash credit as well as the bank reconciliation statements furnished by the assessee for the year ending 31/03/2011. Accordingly, Ground No. 1 of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

4.

Ground No.2, reads as follows:- “2. That in particular, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Kolkata, erred in confirming the Addition/Disallowance made by the Appellant to the income returned.” 4.1. This ground is erroneous as the appellant is in this case is the assessee and he has not made any addition/disallowance suo moto. In any event, I do not find any reason to interfere in the decision of the ld. CIT(A) on the issue that the assessee seeks to arise vide this ground. Hence Ground No. 2, is dismissed.

5.

Ground Nos. 3 & 4 are general in nature.

6.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part.

Kolkata, the 5th day of December, 2018. Sd/- [J. Sudhakar Reddy] Accountant Member Dated : 05.12.2018 {SC SPS}

Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Prakriti Sengupta Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Smt. Prakriti Sengupta 30/65/B, Attapara Lane Kolkata – 700 050 2. Income Tax Officer, Ward-41(3), Kolkata

3.

CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →