ANAND KUMAR JHA,HOWRAH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI

PDF

ITA 12/GTY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati11 February 2025AY 2021-22Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS (Judicial Member)4 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

Facts

A search action under Section 132(1) led to the assessee's case being selected for scrutiny, wherein the AO identified a discrepancy between total bank credits (₹30,92,249/-) and reported income (₹6,21,397/-). Consequently, the AO added ₹7,28,363/- as unexplained credit under Section 68 from a Bank of India account, which the CIT(A) upheld, stating the assessee failed to provide corroborating evidence for claimed reimbursements, revenue receipts, or journal entries.

Held

The Tribunal examined the assessee's furnished details and books of accounts, noting that the credited amounts (accounting income, bank interest, client receipts, salary, etc.) were either incorporated as income in the profit and loss account or duly shown as reimbursements and transfers. Disagreeing with the CIT(A)'s finding of lack of evidence, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO to delete the addition.

Key Issues

Whether the addition of ₹7,28,363/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act was justified, considering the assessee's explanations and documentation regarding bank account credits.

Sections Cited

Section 68, Section 132(1), Section 143(2), Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “GUWAHATI” BENCH, GUWAHATI

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Gupta &

For Respondent: Shri Kausik Ray, DR

Hearing: 30.01.2025Pronounced: 11.02.2025

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Central NER, Guwahati (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 08.12.2023 for the AY 2021-22.

The only issue raised by the assessee is against the order of ld. CIT (A) confirming the addition of ₹7,28,363/- as made by the ld. AO u/s 68 of the Act.

The facts in brief are that a search action was taken u/s 132(1) of the Act on Prasad Group including the assessee. The case of the assessee was selected for a complete scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued. Accordingly, the assessee filed the return of income on

In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) also dismissed the appeal of the assessee, after taking into consideration the reply filed by the assessee, wherein the assessee submitted the amounts of credits pertained to the re-imbursement of expenses in the various group of companies in which the assessee is an employee, some revenues receipts and journal entries. However, according to the ld. CIT (A), the assessee has not produced any evidences corroborating the same and accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the credits appearing in the bank account number ‘400110110002709’ with Bank of India, was on account of other incomes received by the assessee as accounting income or interest income, journal entries or on account of Anand Kumar Jha (Annexure ‘A) Year ended 31.03.2021 Headwise details of deposits in Bank of India A/c No.2709 Particulars Credits by Bank Accounting Income 75278 Bank Interest 8869 Received from Client 248,716 Salary 212000 Nity Jha 100000 Amoutn Deposited (cash) 49,000 Transfer from BOI A/c No. 15394 14500 Dipika Sau 20000 Total 728363 06. We observe from the above details and the books of accounts that same were incorporated by the assessee in his books of accounts and accordingly items of incomes were duly shown in the profit and loss account, whereas the other items such as re-imbursement of expenses and transfers to other bank accounts etc. were also duly shown. Therefore, we do not agree with the conclusion drawn by the ld. CIT (A) on this issue. Consequently, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT (A) and direct the ld. AO to delete the addition.