SRI.G.P.SRINIVAS MURTHY,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1633/BANG/2016Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2017AY 2009-20106 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had submitted additional evidence, including affidavits and bank statements, before the CIT(A) to explain the source of the cash deposits as loans from friends and relatives. However, the CIT(A) had not examined this evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the issue to the Assessing Officer for readjudication after examining the evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a provision store owner, made cash deposits of Rs. 15,70,000 in their bank account. The Assessing Officer added Rs. 3,10,000 to the income under Section 68, as the assessee failed to satisfactorily explain the source of this amount.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made under Section 68 for unexplained cash deposits is justified when the appellate authority has not examined the evidence submitted by the assessee to explain the source of the deposits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCH-SMC “ C ”

Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar, Advocate

Per Shri Vijay Pal Rao, J.M. : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dt.6.7.2016 of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the Assessment Year 2009-10.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds :

1.

Rs.3,10,000 made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') on account of cash deposit in Bank. The assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of running a provision store.

During the scrutiny assessment, the Assessing Officer found that there is a cash deposit in the assessee's S.B. Account of Rs.15,70,000. The Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to file the details. After verification of the details filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer has made an addition to the extent of cash deposit of Rs.3,10,000 under Section 68 of the Act. The assessee challenged the action of the Assessing Officer before the CIT (Appeals) and submitted that the cash deposit in the bank have been received from friends and relatives. The assessee also filed Affidavit of the creditors, since these Affidavits and claims were made first time and further the creditors were having small income of their own therefore, the CIT (Appeals) did not accept the explanation furnished by the assessee and confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

4.

Before the Tribunal, the learned Authorised Representative of the assessee has referred to the letter dt.4.11.2011 filed by the assessee in details/documents in support of the deposits made in the bank account. The learned Authorised Representative has further pointed out that the assessee has given the details of the deposits by explaining the amounts received from the relatives and friends. The assessee also furnished the bank statement in support of the claim to show that sufficient balance was available with the creditors who have given loan to the assessee. However the CIT (Appeals) did not even examine the relevant evidence and Affidavit filed by the assessee.

Thus the learned Authorised Representative of the assessee has submitted that the evidence filed by the assessee has not been examined either by the Assessing Officer or by the CIT (Appeals) and therefore the matter may be remitted to the record of the Assessing Officer for verification and examination.

5.

On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative has submitted that the explanation and detils furnished by the assessee are not reflected in the balance and the assessee did not file the balance sheet to show the loan amount given to the assessee. Further the confirmation filed before the Assessing Officer is different from the Affidavit filed before the CIT (Appeals) therefore the same cannot be accepted. since these loans were taken as personal loans and therefore it was not taken to the balance sheet of the assessee.

7.

Having considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record, it is noted that the Assessing Officer has accepted the explanation and source of deposit of Rs.12,60,000 but made the addition of the balance amount of Rs.3,10,000 on the ground that the assessee has failed to explain the source of the cash deposit in the Bank. Before the CIT (Appeals) the assessee produced additional evidence in the form of Affidavit as well as the bank details to explain the source of cash deposit as loan taken from the friends and relatives. It is pertinent to note that the CIT (Appeals) has not examined the evidence filed by the assessee but turned down the same on the ground that because of a considerable lapse of time, the same is not verifiable.

Thus it is clear that the evidence filed by the assessee before the CIT (Appeals) remain unexamined. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case when evidence filed by the assessee has not been examined by the authorities below, the issue is set aside to the record of the Assessing Officer for readjudication after examination and verification of the evidence filed by the before deciding the issue.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →