SMT. M.R.ASHALATHA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1317/BANG/2016Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 October 2016AY 2009-105 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not produced sufficient evidence to support the source of the cash deposits. However, in the interest of justice, the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration after the assessee produces relevant records.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an individual, had cash deposits of Rs. 16,04,000 in her bank account. The Assessing Officer treated these deposits as unexplained income. The assessee claimed that a portion of these deposits was from previous withdrawals, but failed to provide supporting evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits in a bank account are unexplained income when the assessee fails to provide supporting evidence for their source.

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 “ C ”

Before: SHRI A.K. GARODIA & SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO

For Appellant: Shri H.N.Khincha, C.A

Per Shri Vijay Pal Rao, J.M. : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dt.18.5.2016 of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bangalore-6 for the Assessment Year 2009-10.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds :

1.

3. The only issue arises for our consideration and adjudication is regarding addition made on account of cash deposit in the Bank of Rs.16,04,000.

4. The assessee is an individual and deriving income from house property and bank interest. In the scrutiny assessment, the Assessing Officer noted that there are cash deposits in the bank account of assessee with UCO Bank to the tune of Rs.16,04,000. The Assessing Officer made the addition on the basis of AIR information in respect of the cash deposits being unexplained cash deposit.

The assessee challenged the action of the Assessing Officer before the CIT (Appeals) but could not succeed.

5.

Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the CIT (Appeals) has not given the credit of withdrawal of Rs.12,85,000 by the assessee as source of the subsequent deposit. He has further submitted that the assessee could not produce the cash book before the authorities below and therefore one more opportunity may be given to the assessee to produce the relevant evidence in support of the source of the deposits in the Bank.

6.

On the other hand, the ld. DR has relied upon the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the assessee has failed to substantiate its claim with supporting evidence.

7.

Having considered the rival submissions and relevant material on record, we note that the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT (Appeals) has disallowed the claim of the assessee on the ground that the assessee has not produced any evidence in support of her explanation of the source being withdrawal for subsequent deposit in the Bank. The CIT (Appeals) has given his finding in paras 7 to 9 are as under :

It is clear from the finding of the CIT (Appeals) that the withdrawal of Rs.12,85,000 was not in dispute however the source to the extent of the said withdrawal was not accepted for want of supporting evidence. Since the ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the assessee may be given one more opportunity to produce the cash book and other relevant records in support of the claim therefore in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we set aside the matter to the record of the Assessing Officer to reconsider this issue after verification of the relevant record to be produced by assessee.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 19th Oct., 2016.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →