ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SH. MOFIJUL RAHMAN SEKH, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 357/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 April 2017AY 2009-102 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 cannot be made on the basis of all credits without considering cash withdrawals. It noted that only the peak balance in the bank account can be taxed as undisclosed income. The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s order in deleting the addition except for Rs. 1 lac.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 42,90,400/- under Section 68 for unexplained cash credits in the assessee's bank account. The assessee claimed the deposits were from a third party, Mr. Jahangir Khan, but failed to produce him or supporting documents. The CIT(A) upheld an addition of Rs. 1 lac.

What were the issues?

Whether additions under Section 68 can be made on total credits without considering withdrawals, and if the peak credit method is applicable for unexplained bank 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, DELHI BENCH “E”: NEW DELHI

Before: SMT BEENA A PILLAI & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI

For Respondent: DR Assessee by:
Hearing: 21/02/2017Pronounced: 10/04/2017

Revenue by : Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR Assessee by: None Date of Hearing 21/02/2017 Date of pronouncement 10/04/2017 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This appeal is preferred by the revenue against the order of the ld CIT(A) XXIII, New Delhi dated 18.11.2013 for the Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. On the facts and on the circumstances of the case that Ld.CIT(A) has erred in holding that addition u/s 68 cannot be made on the basis of unexplained credit entries/deposits in assessee's bank account.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case that Ld.CIT(A) has erred in accepting the assessee's plea that deposits in his bank account pertains to a third person namely Sh. Jahangir Khan, despite the fact that the assessee not only failed to produce Sh Jahangir Khan before the AO for examination but also failed to furnish any documents in support of his claim that deposits in his bank account pertains to third person namely Sh Jahangir Khan.

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case that Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.42,90,400/- on account of unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing of the appeal.”

3. The assessee is an individual, who filed his return of income on 03.08.2009 showing income of Rs. 153204/-. Subsequently, according to AIR information it was found that the assessee has deposited and withdrawn from his bank account with ICICI Bank. It was stated by the assessee that the whole transaction is made o f Rs. 4290400/- by his friend Mr. Jahagir Khan. The ld Assessing Officer disbelieved this statement and made the addition of Rs. 4290400/- u/s 68 of the Act and passed assessment order

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →