DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. SUNIL BHALLA, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6689/DEL/2013Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2017AY 2008-094 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of a substantial portion of the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) had accepted additional evidence and found that cash withdrawals could be considered as a source for cash deposits, leading to a partial allowance of the assessee's appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a return declaring a certain income and agricultural income. The AIR information indicated significant credit card payments and cash deposits, leading to an addition by the Assessing Officer. The assessee filed an application for additional evidence before the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits and credit card expenses were adequately explained by the assessee, and if withdrawals could be considered as a source for such deposits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH - ‘D’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI & SHRI B.P. JAIN

For Respondent: Shri C.S. Agarwal,, Sr. Advocate
Hearing: 11/05/2017Pronounced: 12/05/2017

This appeal by revenue has been directed against the order of Ld. CIT XII New Delhi dated 12th August, 2013 for assessment. Year 2008- 09, challenging the deletion of addition of Rs.54,90,116/- on account of cash deposit and credit card expenses.

2. Briefly the facts of the case are that return declaring an income of Rs. 2,00,000/- and agricultural income of Rs. 1,82,000/- was filed on 30th September, 2008. AIR information was received in this case that the assessee had made credit card payment / purchase of units / cash deposited in bank account of Rs. 95,90,116/-. Therefore addition was Page 1 of 4 made on account of unexplained money as per AIR information. The assessee filed an application under rule 46A before Ld. CIT(A) for filing additional evidences. Ld. CIT(A) admitted the additional evidences and directed the Assessing Officer to examine the additional evidence and file a remand report after giving opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Assessing Officer gave his remand report in which the Assessing Officer considered the issue in detail regarding cash deposits by assessee and availability of the cash. Ld. CIT(A) considering the remand report as reproduced on the impugned order (copy also filed by Ld. Counsel for assessee) and noted that Assessing Officer has accepted the evidences filed by assessee and has drawn no adverse opinion regarding the following :

1. Mutual fund investment of Rs. 30,00,000/- out of 40,00,000/-

2. Entire credit card payment of Rs. 11,76,616/-

3.

Cash deposit of Rs. 28,42,300/-

3. Ld. CIT(A) therefore noted that out of additions made on the basis of AIR, the additions remaining were as under :-

1.

Cash deposit of Rs. 15,70,200/-

2.

Mutual Fund Investments of Rs. 10,00,000/-

4.

Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition on account of investment in mutual fund of Rs. 10 lacs. Ld. Counsel for assessee submitted that assessee has not challenged the addition of Rs. 10 lacs.

5.

Ld. CIT(A) thereafter considered the issue of cash deposit of Rs. 15,71,200/-.Explanation of assessee is reproduced in the impugned order. Ld. CIT(A) after considering submissions of the assessee noted that the argument of the Assessing Officer is that withdrawn after the last date of deposits cannot be considered as a source for making cash deposits in the bank account. The assessee has submitted copies of the letters sent to the bank which states that withdrawals was for repayment of loans which is evidence that he has borrowed money and deposited the same into his account. Accordingly, argument of the assessee was found to have merit and the withdrawals of Rs. 15 lacs post last date of deposit in the opinion of the Ld. CIT(A) should be considered as source of making cash deposits. Therefore, cash withdrawals of Rs. 15,00,000/- post last date of deposit was considered as available to the assessee to explain the total deposit of cash bank. Ld. CIT(A) accordingly partly allowed the appeal of the assessee.

5.1 After considering rival submissions, we do not find any merit in this ground of appeal of the revenue. The Assessing Officer in the remand report had accepted substantial availability of the cash and credit card payment. Therefore revenue has no grievance against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition to that extent which is agreed by the Assessing Officer to be deleted in the remand report. Ld. CIT(A) also considered the issue of cash deposit of Rs. 15,71,200/- and accepted the explanation of assessee based on the letters sent to the bank by the assessee in which no infirmity has been pointed out by the Ld. DR. Since the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the substantial addition on the basis of the remand report submitted by Assessing Officer agreeing to availability of funds with the assessee and that the cash withdrawal of Rs. 15,00,000/- post last date of deposit was considered favourably and available to assessee based on the evidence and material on record, therefore there is no justification to interfere with the order of Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition. In the absence of any serious challenge to the findings of the Ld. CIT(A), no interference is called for in departmental appeal same is dismissed.

6.

In the result departmental appeal is dismissed.

Pronounced in the Open Court.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →