BASANAGOUDA PATIL,YADGIR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, YADGIR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1652/BANG/2017Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 December 2017AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not properly examined the detailed explanations and cash book provided by the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the CIT(Appeals) order concerning additions made to income. The assessee argued that explanations and cash books provided to the lower authorities regarding bank deposits were not properly appreciated.

What were the issues?

Whether the lower authorities properly appreciated the assessee's explanations and evidence regarding cash deposits in the bank account, and whether additions were justified based on alleged differences in bank balances.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC – A” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV

For Appellant: Shri B.S. Balachandran, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Vikas Suryawanshi, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Hearing: 15.11.2017Pronounced: 22.12.2017

Date of hearing : 15.11.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 22.12.2017 O R D E R This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order of the CIT(Appeals) inter alia on the following grounds:-

“1. The order of the learned CIT (A) insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the appellant, is bad and unsustainable in the eye of law. 2. CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that for the purposes of S.68 of the It act, it is the amount/ sum credited in the books of accounts and not pass book as held by various courts; and hence the addition was bad in law. 3. CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that the alleged difference in closing bank balance was never put across to the appellant by the A.O. and therefore the addition should not have been confirmed.

4. Without prejudice, the CIT(A) appreciated that the alleged difference was again in the bank account and not in the books of account of the appellant and therefore no addition could be made.

5. For these and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, the Appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed.”

2.

During the course of hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention that there are certain deposits in the bank account which are duly explained to the AO and the CIT(Appeals), but they have not appreciated the explanation furnished by the assessee.

3.

The ld. Counsel for the assessee further invited our attention to the order of the CIT(Appeals) in which it is mentioned that assessee has furnished the cash book explaining the availability of cash for depositing in the bank, but the explanation furnished by the assessee was not appreciated by the lower authorities. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter be sent back to the AO for readjudication of the issue in the light of the assessee’s contentions.

4.

The ld. DR, however, opposed the contentions of the assessee.

5.

Having carefully examined the orders of lower authorities in the light of rival submissions, I find that the assessee has filed detailed explanation along with the cash book showing the availability of cash for deposit in the bank account, but all this evidence was not properly examined by the lower authorities. I am, therefore, of the view that in the interest of justice, the matter be sent back to the AO for adjudication of the issue afresh. Accordingly, the order of the CIT(Appeals) is set aside and the matter is restored to the AO for readjudication of the impugned issue afresh, after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

6.

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

Pronounced in the open court on this 22nd day of December, 2017.

( SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated, the 22nd December, 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 →