ALTAF J MOMIN,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 24(1)(4), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1772/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 February 2018AY 2009-104 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to examine the assessee's claim and evidence regarding the source of cash deposits afresh, giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a doctor, declared a low income and had a significant cash deposit of Rs 14,70,000/-. The assessee claimed the cash was withdrawn from the bank for medical exigencies of his mother.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee adequately explained the source of cash deposits before the Assessing Officer and CIT(A), and if not, whether a fresh opportunity should be granted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “A”, MUMBAI

Before: Shri JOGINDER SINGH, & Shri G. MANJUNATHA

For Appellant: Shri Ram Chaurasia, Shri V Vidhyadhar
Hearing: 07/02/2018

आदेश / O R D E R

Per Joginder Singh (Judicial Member) The assessee is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 17th January 2014 of the learned first appellate authority sustaining the addition with respect to cash deposit of Rs 14,70,000/- and consequent addition u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act).

2.

During hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee Shri Ram Chaurasia filed bank statement as on 31st March 2009 and statement of account with respect to cash. It was explained that the assessee went to Canada in 2009 and the amount of Rs 26 lacs was withdrawn from Bank for medical exigencies (operation of mother). It was contended that the assessee is in a position to explain the source of cash. The assessee has also annexed the evidences of medical report of the mother of the assessee.

1.

The learned DR contended that it was the duty of the assessee to explain the source before the learned Assessing Officer/CIT(A).

3.

We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The facts in brief are that the assessee is a professional doctor. He declared income of Rs 1,09,760/- in his return filed on 17th April 2009. As per information with the Assessing Officer there was cash deposit of Rs 14,70,000/- in Development Credit Bank. The assessee furnished the bank statement of the assessee for the relevant period.

The assessee was asked to explain the source of cash deposits on various dates. The assessee claimed that the cash of Rs 26,75,500/- was withdrawn from the bank.

The explanation of the assessee was rejected and consequent addition was made u/s. 68 of the Act. The learned CIT(A) affirmed the stand of the Assessing Officer.

Before this Tribunal, the assessee claimed that he is in a position to explain the source of the cash and the representative of the assessee could not explain properly during assessment proceedings as the assessee was disturbed due to medical exigencies. Considering the totality of facts, we are of the view that the mandate of Article 265 of Constitution of India is to levy and collect due taxes. The assessee is directed to furnish the necessary evidence with respect to his claim before the learned Assessing Officer and source of the impugned cash. The learned Assessing Officer is directed to examine the claim of the assessee and decide afresh in accordance with law. The assessee be given opportunity of being heard.

Thus, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only.

This Order was pronounced in the open court in the presence of learned representatives from both sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 7th February, 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 →