Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee deposited Rs. 76,19,000/- in his saving bank account, explaining that the funds belonged to his brother, Shri Ved Prakash, and provided bank statements of Prakash Dairy. The Assessing Officer (AO) rejected this explanation, treating the amount as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The CIT(A) subsequently dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-prosecution.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the assessee had submitted voluminous information and documents to the lower authorities which were not considered. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to consider the matter afresh after providing the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
Whether the addition of Rs. 76,19,000/- as unexplained cash credit under section 68 was legally correct without proper consideration of the assessee's explanation and evidence.
Sections Cited
Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘C’ : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA & SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S.
PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dated 31.10.2023 for the assessment year 2014-15. 2. Although assessee has raised various grounds the crux of the grounds of appeal is that addition of Rs.76,19,000/- is not legally correct.
3. Brief facts of the case are that in this case, AO noted that assessee was asked to explain cash deposit of Rs.76,19,000/- in his saving bank account. Assessee responded that the cash deposits made in his accounts pertain to Shri Ved 2 Prakash who is his brother and filed bank statement of Prakash Dairy run by his brother. AO was not satisfied with the reply and considered the assessee’s explanation as cooked-up story and added the same as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’).
Against this order, assessee appealed before the ld. CIT (A). Ld. CIT (A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.
Against this order, assessee appealed before us. We have heard both the parties and perused the records.
Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee has submitted voluminous information and documents before the AO as well as ld. CIT (A) but the same has not been considered. He prayed that an opportunity may be granted to enable the assessee to properly canvass the appeal before the authorities below.
Ld. DR for the Revenue did not have any objection to this proposition.
Upon hearing both the parties and perusing the records, in the interest of justice, we remit the issue to the file of AO. AO should consider the issue afresh after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 16th day of April, 2024.