What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the issue back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision. The AO is directed to consider all evidence, including documents supporting agricultural land and HUF funds, as the CIT(A) had not disposed of a relevant ground.

The Assessing Officer added Rs. 14,53,000/- to the assessee's income based on AIR information regarding cash deposits in a savings bank account. The CIT(A) partly allowed the assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly considered all grounds of appeal and evidence. Whether the source of cash deposits was adequately explained and verified.

Abhaysing Rajput vs ITO | ITAT Mumbai 2018

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

Before: SHRI D.T. GARASIA & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri D.C. Saboo, A.R. &, Shri Shyam Saboo, A.R

For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R

Hearing: 01.01.2018Pronounced: 15.01.2018

Per D.T. GARASIA, Judicial Member:

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 05.03.2014 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] relevant to assessment year 2009-10.

The short facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the AO) has received the AIR information that the assessee has deposited Rs.14,53,000/- in cash in the savings bank account of State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Ghatkopar branch,

2 Shri Abhaysing Rajput Mumbai. Accordingly, show cause notice was issued to the assessee to submit complete documentary evidences to prove the source of cash deposits in its bank account. Since the AO was not satisfied with the reply of assessee, AO added Rs.14,53,000/- to the income of the assessee.

Matter carried to the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee.

During the course of hearing, the Ld. A.R. submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has not disposed of ground No.6 which was filed before the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. A.R. also submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has not considered the evidence which was filed before the AO and the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, this matter may be restored to AO to decide it afresh. Assessee has produced all the evidences and if both the evidences are considered and verified by the AO then there will not be any addition.

The Ld. D.R. objected to it.

Having heard both the parties, we are of the view that Ld. CIT(A) has not disposed of ground No.6 and Ld. CIT(A) has disposed of other grounds. The ground No.6 and other grounds are interconnected. Moreover, assessee has also taken the contention that assessee has received this amount from his father out of his HUF fund and he has produced all the documents in support of agricultural land at his native place. Therefore, if this is considered, then there

3 Shri Abhaysing Rajput will be no addition. Therefore, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, we restore this issue back to the file of AO and AO is directed to decide the matter afresh after considering all the evidences. AO is at liberty to repeat the addition if the assessee is failed to present before the AO.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 15.01.2018.

ABHAYSING RAJPUT,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(2)(1), MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments