DEBAJEET NARZARY,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2549/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 October 2017AY 2010-115 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that deposits from the assessee's mother were explained by her bank withdrawals, and re-deposits of amounts previously withdrawn by the assessee were also accepted. However, a remaining amount was not pressed by the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee deposited cash into bank accounts, which the Assessing Officer treated as unexplained and added to the total income. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits in bank accounts are unexplained income, and if the source of such deposits can be explained by withdrawals from other accounts or from family members.

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 BENCHES : SMC : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL

For Appellant: Shri K.K. Samantaray, CA
For Respondent: Shri T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR
Hearing: 18.10.2017Pronounced: 18.10.2017

ORDER This appeal by the assessee is directed against order passed by the ld. CIT(A) on 31.01.2017 in relation to the assessment year 2010-11.

2.

The assessee is aggrieved against the confirmation of addition of Rs.4,40,806/-,being, cash deposited in bank which has been treated as unexplained.

3.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee deposited certain amounts in his bank accounts maintained with ICICI Bank and Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., as under:-

Date of Amount credited Nature of entry Transaction [in Rs.] 28/10/2009 97,306 Credit entry 06/02/2010 49,500 Cash deposit 08/03/2010 49,000 Cash deposit 09/03/2010 49,000 Cash deposit 30/03/2010 49,000 Cash deposit TOTAL 2,93,806/-

Date of Amount deposited in cash Deposit [in Rs.] 08/03/2010 49,000 09/03/2010 49,000 30/03/2010 49,000 TOTAL 1,47,000/-

4.

In the absence of any satisfactory reply filed by the assessee in support of the cash deposits, the Assessing Officer made addition for a sum of Rs.4,40,806/- being sum total of the above two tables. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition.

5.

I have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. There are four cash deposits of Rs.49,000/- each on 08.03.2010 and 09.03.2010. The assessee submitted that such total sum of Rs.1.96 lac was deposited on receipt from his mother. Page 48 of the paper book is a copy of bank account of the assessee’s mother, which is a running account having several transactions. The assessee’s mother is an employee. Out of deposits aggregating over a period, she withdrew a sum of Rs.2 lac on 08.03.2010, which has been claimed as the source of the deposit by the assessee in his bank account to the tune of Rs.1,96,000/-. I, therefore, treat this source as explained and order for the deletion of addition to the extent of Rs.1.96 lac.

6.

There are other three entries: (i) of Rs.49,500/-, being, cash deposited on 06.02.2010; and (ii) two entries of cash deposit of Rs.49,000/- each on 30.03.2010. The ld. AR has placed on record withdrawals made by the assessee from his bank accounts to the tune of Rs.8,31,900/-, a part of which totaling to Rs.1,47,500/- being the total of the above three transactions was re-deposited. Since the amount of withdrawals is much more than the amount of re-deposits and the Revenue has brought any material on record that the entire amount withdrawn was spent elsewhere, I accept the assessee’s explanation to this extent. Therefore, addition to the tune of Rs.1,47,500/- is deleted.

7.

The ld. AR did not press for the remaining addition of Rs.97,306/-, which is hereby confirmed.

8.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed.

The order pronounced in the open court on 18.10.2017.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →