Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, C/“SMC” BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI
आदेश / O R D E R
PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
1. This appeal is filed by the assessee, aggrieved by the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(A)-5, Chennai dated 22.12.2016 pertaining to assessment year 2011-12.
The assessee has raised the following grounds for adjudication.
The order of The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 5, Chennai dated 2212.2016 in ITANo.91/C1T(A)-5/20l4-15 for the above mentioned Assessment Year is contrary to law, facts, and in the circumstances of the case.
2. The CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.22,39,000/- as unexplained cash deposit in the IDBI bank account in the computation of taxable total income without assigning proper reasons and justification. 3. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the cash book submitted in the proceedings was wrongly overlooked and rejected on wrong presumption of facts, thereby vitiating the additions. 4. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the explanation given on 20.12.2016 reproduced in para 9.3 of the impugned order was completely brushed aside in recording wrong findings in para 9.4 of the impugned order. 5. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the decisions cited to confirming the addition were not applicable to the facts of the case and ought to have appreciated that the addition sustained in the impugned order was wholly unjustified in view of non recording of valid reasons in. relation thereto especially in completely overlooking the facts and the decisions cited in support 6. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that there was no proper opportunity given before passing of the impugned order and any order passed in. violation of the principles natural justice would be nullity in law.
The brief facts of the case are that the ld. Assessing Officer perused the cash book of the assessee, and found that the cash book has been prepared based on the bank statement sent by the A.O.
For example the opening balance as on 01.04.2010 in the cash book is `5,25,400/- but as per the bank statement the closing balance as on 31.03.2010 is only `73/-. For the difference of amount `5,25,327/-, no explanation or sources has been provided by the assessee. The assessee has stated in the cash book that sold jewellery for `4,98,253/- on 29.04.2010 at Kanpur. The assessee deposited in the IDBI bank, Ambattur Chennai. (No cash entry in the bank account). On verification of the bank statement and the cash book submitted by the assessee the deposit of `7,37,000/- as being confirmed by the assessee’s husband (Shri Ravinder Kumar Mishra) is accepted. As the assessee has not substantiated the sources nor evidence for the cash deposits of `1 Iakh and above made in the IDBI bank, Ambattur, Chennai to the tune of `22,39,000/- ,therefore the same is assessed to tax. Aggrieved by the order of ld. Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). On appeal, Ld.CIT(A) observed that the deposits in the bank accounts was not satisfied explanation. Hence, the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer. Against the order of Ld.CIT(A), now the assessee is in appeal before us.
Before me, the ld.A.R submitted that the assessee has deposited money as and when received from her husband and also earlier withdrawals were re-deposited into bank account. Without prejudice, ld.A.R submitted that only peak credit could be considered as unexplained u/s.69of the Act.
On the other hand, ld.D.R submitted that in spite of giving adequate opportunities to the assessee to prove the credits, the assessee filed to establish the source of deposits. Hence, the addition may be sustained.
I have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. In this case, the assessee has filed just bank statement and cash book for the relevant period without explaining each entry of deposit into bank account. In the absence of explanation of assessee regarding source of each deposit, it is not possible to hold that source of deposits is explained. Accordingly, in the interest of justice I remit the entire issue to the file of ld. Assessing Officer with a direction to the assessee to explain each entry of deposit into bank accounts. If the assessee explains each entry of deposits, then the same cannot be considered as unexplained u/s.69 of the Act. With this observation, I remit the issue in dispute to the file of ld. Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.