GOUTAMCHAND SAKLECHA HUF,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4(3)(1), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1337/BANG/2017Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 November 2017AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the deposits were from past withdrawals and loan repayments. It directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the evidence provided by the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee deposited Rs. 12,40,000 into their bank account. The Assessing Officer treated this as unexplained cash credit, rejecting the assessee's claim that it was from loan repayments and cash withdrawals. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits in the bank account are unexplained cash credits when supported by evidence of prior withdrawals and loan repayments.

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. Rohit. G, CA
For Respondent: Shri. Vikas Suryawanshi
Hearing: 13.11.2017Pronounced: 17.11.2017

O R D E R Per Sunil Kumar Yadav, Judicial Member

This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order of CIT(A), interalia, on the following grounds:

“Ground 1:

The Learned Assessing Officer and Commissioner ( Appeals ) have neither appreciated the facts of the case in the true spirit nor examined the explanations / statements filed by the appellant judiciously, but instead passed the Order/(s) in haste without giving due importance to the circumstantial and documentary evidences produced before them. Ground 2:

The authorities below failed to appreciate the fact that the cash receipts of Repayment of Instalment of Loan from persons to whom loans were advanced in lieu of dishonoured cheques issued by them have been treated as Unexplained Cash Credits to the extent of Rs.7,12,500/-. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax [Appeals] – 1, is not justified in confirming the findings of the Assessing Officer.

Ground 3:

The authorities below failed to appreciate the fact that the cash withdrawal of Rs.6,39,000/- made by S. Goutamchand (Kartha) as a representative of S. Goutamchand Saklecha HUF and not in individual capacity subsequently deposited into the Bank on 21.01.2012 treated as unexplained Cash Credits is unjust and has been wrongly construed by the AO and Learned CIT(A) just to meet the ends of the Revenue.

It is respectfully submitted that we may be permitted to add, delete and / or put forward any other grounds and facts of appeal and other related points at the time of hearing.”

2.

Though various grounds are raised in this appeal, but they all relate to the unexplained cash credit found in the Bank account of the assessee. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee invited our attention that having noted the deposits in the Bank account at Rs.12,40,000/-, the AO made an addition of the same after rejecting the contention of the assessee that the cash was deposited out of the repayment of sums advanced to various debtors at Rs.7,12,500/- and Rs.6,39,000/- withdrawn from the assessee’s Savings Bank Account.

3.

Assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and placed the relevant evidences to justify the withdrawal and the repayment of sum advanced, but CIT(A) did not appreciate the contentions of the assessee and confirmed the additions. Now the assessee is before us and during the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee invited our attention to the Bank accounts of the assessee in Vijaya Bank and Karur Vysya Bank (now Karur Vysya Bank Limited). He made a withdrawal of Rs.6,39,000/- on 08.11.2011. Besides, he has also received the repayment of loan in cash from his earlier debtors when the cheque was bounced. Out of the withdrawals from its Bank accounts and the cash received from its debtors, deposits were made in the Bank. The Bank statements detailing the return of cheque, withdrawal of cash and also deposit of cash is available in the compilation filed by the assessee. Copy of the pronotes evidencing the advance of loan to various debtors.

4.

Having carefully perused all these evidences, I find force in the contention of the assessee that cash was deposited by the assessee out of the past withdrawals and the repayment of loan in cash but these evidences were not properly examined by the lower authorities. Since it requires a verification of the facts, I set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the AO with a direction to examine the evidences relating to withdrawal from the Banks and the receipt of cash on non encashment of cheques. Accordingly, the matter is restored to the file of the AO to readjudicate the issue afresh after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee in terms indicated above.

5.

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

Pronounced in the open court on November, 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 →