SHUBHANGI P.TOTRE,MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(2)(3), NAVI MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4331/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 November 2017AY 2010-113 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the issues of opening cash balance and cash withdrawals to the CIT(A) for verification. The claim of sale proceeds from agricultural lands was rightly rejected due to lack of evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee deposited a significant amount of cash into her bank accounts. She claimed these deposits were from the sale of agricultural lands, but the lands were unregistered and owned by her husband and relatives. The Assessing Officer treated the deposits as unexplained income.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits into bank accounts can be treated as unexplained income when the source claimed (sale of agricultural land) is not substantiated with credible evidence. The verification of opening cash balance and cash withdrawals as potential credits against 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, “E” Bench, Mumbai

Before: Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM)& Shri Pawan Singh (JM)

For Respondent: Shri V. Jostin
Hearing: 1.11.2017Pronounced: 8.11.2017

O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran (AM) :-

The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 31.3.2014 passed by Ld CIT(A)-33, Mumbai and it relates to the assessment year 2010- 11. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of Ld CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs.45.59 lakhs relating to unexplained cash credits.

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee. The notice sent by registered post also returned unserved. Even though the appeal was filed by the assessee way back in 2014, the assessee has failed to respond to the notices sent earlier. Hence we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex-parte, without the presence of the assessee.

3.

The AO noticed from the AIR information that the assessee has deposited cash into her bank accounts maintained with Union bank of India and Central bank of India. The assessee claimed a sum of Rs.30.00 lakhs as sale proceeds of agricultural lands. The AO noticed that the sale agreements were unregistered and further the lands stood in the name of assessee’s husband

2 Mrs. Shubhangi P. Totre and his relatives. Accordingly he assessed aggregate amount of deposits of Rs.52,93,959/- as income of the assessee.

4.

The Ld CIT(A) rejected the theory of sale consideration received on sale of agricultural land. However he granted relief to the extent of Rs.7,34,959/-, being the amounts representing bank loan, maturity proceeds of FD and interest income. Accordingly he confirmed addition to the extent of Rs.45,59,000/-. Still aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal.

5.

We heard Ld D.R and perused the record. We notice that the assessee has claimed credit for opening cash balance of Rs.5,24,271/- and cash withdrawals of Rs.10,04,000/-. We notice that the Ld CIT(A) has rejected the same. In our view, the opening cash balance may be given credit, if the same is reflected in the return of income filed for earlier year. Similarly the cash withdrawals may be allowed credit, if the same has been re-deposited. However, these two claims put forth by the assessee require verification. Accordingly we restore these two issues to the file of Ld CIT(A) for examining the claims of the assessee in the light of above discussions. The theory of sale proceeds of agricultural lands, in our view, has been rightly rejected by Ld CIT(A) for want of credible evidences. Hence the balance addition is confirmed, since the assessee could not furnish any evidence.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order has been pronounced in the Court on 8.11.2017.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →