Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SRI MAHAVIR SINGH
This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-37, Mumbai [in short CIT(A)], in appeal No. CIT(A)-37/IT-14/ITO 25(1)(5)/2014-15 dated 03.11.2016. The Assessment was framed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 20(3)(4), Mumbai (in short ‘ITO') for the A.Y. 2009-10 vide order dated 29.09.2014 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’).
The only issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the addition of unexplained cash deposit in different bank accounts amounting to ₹ 21,51,124/- u/s 68 of the Act. For this assessee has raised the following ground: -
“1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred and was not justified in confirming an addition of Rs. 21,51,124/- u/s. 68 of the Income tax Act, 1961 as unexplained cash credit. The amount of addition was arrived from difference between time to time amount deposited in hank and the income offered by the appellant.
The deposits in the bank were pertaining to loan taken during the year, interbank transfers from other bank accounts, amount received as an income and cash deposited out of withdrawal from bank a/c.
Without considering the explanations for bank and cash summary submitted during the course of assessment as well as appellate proceedings, the additions has been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A).”
Briefly stated facts are that the assessee is engaged in the business of running of cars on hire. The AO required the assessee, during the assessment proceedings, to explain the source of cash deposit of ₹ 11,42,900/- in the Bank of Baroda. The assessee produced details of cash withdrawals and bank deposits made in Bank of Baroda. During the assessment proceedings, the AO also observed that the assessee has deposited total cash in four bank accounts at ₹ 52,08,661/-. The AO noted that the gross receipts as per P&L account was at ₹ 30,57,486/-. Accordingly, the AO required the assessee to explain the difference of ₹ 21,15,124/- as unexplained cash deposit in the bank account. The assessee submitted details vide letter dated 25.09.2014 regarding cash deposits. The AO has not accepted the details and added the differential amount of ₹ 21,15,124/- as unexplained cash credit deposited in the bank account. Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A), who confirmed the action of the AO only on the reason that the assessee could not co-relate the withdrawals and re-deposit. Aggrieved, now assessee is in appeal before Tribunal.
I have considered the issue and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. After hearing both the sides, I find that none of the authorities below have considered the details of withdrawals and deposits made in bank accounts by the assessee vis-à-vis the receipts of hiring of car by the assessee. Hence, in the interest of justice, I set aside the order of the lower authorities and remand the matter back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO will co-relate the withdrawals and deposits and also receipts of car hiring charges and accordingly assess the same. Hence, this issue is remanded back to the file of the AO.
In the result, the appeal Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 07-05-2018. AadoSa kI GaaoYaNaa Kulao mao idnaMk 07.05.2018 kao kI ga[- .