BIMLESH GOYAL,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 47(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1256/KOL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 September 2018AY 2014-152 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 95,000/- for unexplained cash deposits, finding sufficient evidence of cash in hand from the preceding year. The addition for lower withdrawals was restricted to Rs. 10,000/-.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer added cash deposits of Rs. 95,000/- and lower withdrawals of Rs. 48,480/- to the assessee's income. The CIT(A) upheld these additions.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits in a savings bank account are unexplained and whether the addition for lower withdrawals was correctly calculated.

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” BENCH : KOLKATA

Before: Hon’ble Shri S.S. Godara, JM]

Hearing: 11.09.2018Pronounced: 28.09.2018
1.

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2014-15 falls into question the CIT(A)-14, Kolkata’s order dated 17.04.2018 passed in case no. 73/CIT(A)-14/Wd-47(1)/2016-17 upholding the Assessing Officer’s action adding cash deposits in savings bank account and lower drawings of Rs. 95,000/- and Rs. 48,480/-; respectively, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

I come to former issue of unexplained cash deposits that amounting to Rs. 95,000/-. Both the lower authorities have held the assessee not to have explained source thereof in assessment as well as lower appellate proceedings. I find that the assessee’s detailed evidence on record as per his profit and loss account at page 8 of the paper book

Bimlesh Goyal A.Yr. 2014-15 pertaining to preceding assessment year indicates cash in hand of Rs. 4,24,438/- as on 31.03.2013. This clinching figure has gone un resulted from Revenue’s side. I delete the impugned addition of Rs. 95,000/- made by both the lower authorities u/s 68 therefore.

3.

Coming to latter issue of lower withdrawals of Rs. 48,480/-, the assessee is fair enough in not disputing correctness thereof in principle. His only case is that the both the lower authorities have made the impugned addition on higher side. I therefore partly accept assessee’s arguments to restrict the impugned addition to a lumpsum amount of Rs. 10,000/- only with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent in any preceding or succeeding assessment year. Assessee gets part relief to the above extent.

4.

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in the Court on 28.09.2018

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →