SH. GURCHARAN SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6198/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 February 2017AY 2010-114 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the AO's figure for cash withdrawals was disputed by the assessee and required verification. The matter was restored to the AO for re-computation.

What were the facts?

The assessee deposited Rs. 44,86,975/- in their savings bank account. The AO treated a difference of Rs. 10,77,905/- as unexplained income after adjusting for disclosed income and withdrawals.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the correctness of the cash withdrawal figure used by the AO in calculating unexplained income. The assessee disputed this figure.

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 BENCHES : SMC-I : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL

For Appellant: Ms Rano Jain, Advocate &, Shri Ashish Goel, CA
For Respondent: Shri F.R. Meena, Sr. DR
Hearing: 22.02.2017Pronounced: 22.02.2017

ORDER This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) on 28.09.2016 against the confirmation of addition of Rs.10,77,905/- made by the AO on account of cash deposit in the bank account.

2.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee deposited a sum of Rs.44,86,975/- in his savings bank account with PNB, Alaknanda, New Delhi, which remained unexplained despite sufficient opportunities given by the AO.

To provide justice to the assessee, the AO computed the amount of unexplained cash receipts/deposits as under:-

“1. Total cash deposit in bank account - Rs.44,86,075/-

2. Total Cash withdrawal from above bank - Rs.28,14,780/-

3.

Difference of the above treated as business income- Rs.16,71,295/-

4. Less: Income disclosed in ITR - Rs. 5,93,390/-

5. Balance, treated as undisclosed income - Rs.10,77,905/-”

3. That is how, an addition of Rs.10,77,905/- was made which came to be affirmed in the first appeal. The assessee is aggrieved against the sustenance of such addition.

4.

I have heard the parties and perused the relevant material on record. The ld. AR did not dispute any of the figures taken by the AO in the above calculation except the amount of total cash withdrawals from the above bank taken by the AO at Rs.28,14,780/-. The ld. AR submitted that the AO went wrong in adopting this figure as against the correct figure of Rs.41,26,970/-. This was sought to be fortified by placing on record certain details of cash deposits and withdrawals from the bank account. This factual aspect needs verification at the end of the AO. In view of this, I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would meet adequately if the impugned order on this score is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of AO. I order accordingly and direct him to verify the figure of total cash withdrawals from the bank and substitute the correct figure with the amount of Rs.28,14,780/- and, thereafter, determine undisclosed income, if any, from the calculation made by him.

5.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

The order pronounced in the open court on 22.02.2017.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →