M/S. OM EXPORT (SINCE DISSOLVED),KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 29(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were duly explained as partner's capital contribution, as evidenced by the partner's balance sheet and income tax return. The rejection of the explanation solely on the basis of cash contribution instead of cheque was unjustified.
What were the facts?
The assessee firm, involved in garment trading and since dissolved, had cash deposits of Rs. 3,20,000/- in its bank account. The Assessing Officer treated these deposits as unexplained, disbelieving the explanation that it was partner's capital contribution in cash.
What were the issues?
Whether cash deposits in a bank account can be treated as unexplained if the assessee provides evidence of partner's capital contribution reflected in their balance sheet.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH (SMC
Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’ble Vice -]
order : November 14, 2018 ORDER This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT (Appeals) – 10, Kolkata dated 30.05.2018 whereby he confirmed the addition to Rs. 3,20,000/- made by the A.O. on account of cash deposits found to be made in the bank account of the assessee.
The assessee in the present case is a partnership firm which was involved in the business of garment trading. The said business was closed in the year 2007-08. As per the information received by the A.O. from DDIT (INV), the assessee firm had made cash deposits of Rs. 3,20,000/- in its bank account during the year under consideration. He, therefore, issued a notice u/s 148 in response to which the return of income was filed by the assessee on 09.04.2015 declaring a total income of Rs. 38,709/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the cash deposits of Rs. 3,20,000/- found to be made in its bank account were explained by the assessee as the M/s. OM Export (since dissolved) capital contribution of the partner made during the year under contribution in cash. The A.O. however did not find the said explanation to be satisfactory. According to him, the partner should have contributed their capital by cheque and it was unbelievable that the partners would contribute their capital in cash. He, therefore, treated the cash deposits of Rs. 3,20,000/- found to be made in the bank account of the assessee as unexplained and made addition to that extent to the total income of the assessee in the assessment completed u/s 143(3)/147 vide an order dated 23.11.2015. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the said addition made by the A.O. for the same reasons as given by the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal.
I have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. As submitted by the learned counsel for the assessee, the partner who contributed the capital in cash is regularly assessed to tax and her entire capital contribution made in the assessee firm was duly reflected in her balance sheet filed along with the return of income. He has also placed on record the copy of income tax return of the said partner Smt. Kalpana Satnaliwala for A.Y. 2008-09 along with her balance sheet as on 31.03.2008 which clearly shows that the capital contributed by her to the assessee firm was duly reflected in the said balance sheet. Keeping in view this documentary evidence placed on record by the learned counsel for the assessee, I find that the cash deposits of Rs. 3,20,000/- found to be made in the bank account of the assessee were duly explained and there was no justification on the part of the A.O. as M/s. OM Export (since dissolved) well as the Ld. CIT(A) to reject the explanation offered by the assessee merely on the ground that the partners capital should have been contributed by cheques and not in cash. I, therefore, delete the addition of Rs. 3,20,000/- made by the A.O. and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and allow this appeal of the assessee.
More judgments on Section 148
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Sushama Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026