MUKUL BIKAS MAITY,PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 27(4), HALDIA, HALDIA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1038/KOL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 October 2017AY 2009-103 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that some of the fixed deposits were made from disclosed sources and were to be deleted. The remaining addition sustained by the CIT(A) was upheld.

What were the facts?

The assessee declared income from contracts and had a term deposit in Punjab National Bank. The Assessing Officer added the term deposit amount as unexplained investment. The assessee claimed the deposit was made from cash in hand.

What were the issues?

Whether the term deposit made by the assessee constituted unexplained investment, and if the explanation of cash in hand was acceptable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BENCH ‘SMC’ KOLKATA

Before: Hon’ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, AM]

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax-(A)-7, Kolkata relating to A.Y. 2009-10 on the following grounds :- “1) That Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 7, Kolkata was grossly erred in confirming the adding to the extent of Rs. 4,45,000/- as unexplained investment U/s 69B of the I.T. Act, 1961.

2) That the action of Ld. CIT (Appeal) - 7, Kolkata in confirming the addition to the extent of Rs. 4,45,.000/- as unexplained investment is highly arbitrary, unjustified and unwarranted to the facts of the case.

3) That when Ld. Assessing Officer in the remand report made a positive finding as to investments made from disclosed sources, it was wrong on the part of Ld. CIT (Appeals) - 7 to ignore his categorical finding by substituting his own estimates.

4) I may add, alter, amend, modify or withdraw any grounds of appeal on or before the "date of hearing.”

Bikkas Maitry A.Y.2009-10 2

2.

The assessee is an individual an derives inocme from contracts. He filed return of income on 16.11.2009 for A.Y.2009-10 declaring total income of Rs.8,24,830/-. The AO found that the assessee had earned interest income from Punjab National Bank and had not offered the same for taxation. The AO also found that the assessee had a term depoist in Punjab National Bank amounting toRs.5,10,015/-. The same was added under the provision of section 69 B of the Income tax Act, 1961 (Act.)

3.

Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter on appeal. The First Appellate Authority held that the assessee changed the explanation given initially and claimed that the investment in term depoist was from out of cash in hand of Rs.6,53,958/-. The assessee filed a balance sheet as on 31.03.2008 disclosing cash in hand at Rs.6,53,958.04 and claimed that the deposits were made out of this cash balance. The ld. CIT(A) projected this explanation as an after thought. Nevertheless he submitted that the opening cash in hand is Rs.2,00,000/- and granted relief. Aggrieved the assessee is before us.

4.

After hearing the rival contentions, we find that the First Appellate Authority partly accepted the claim of the assessee that it had certain cash balance. The deposits in question are as follows :- FDR No. In Bank Date of made FD Amount PR 9700 PNB,Haldia Br. 01/18/2008 95000 PR 10674 -do- 05/03/2008 18679 PR 10425 -do- 04/08/2008 250000 PR 11646 -do- 08/18/2008 25000 PR 12247 -do- 10/16/2008 100000 PR 12256 -d0- 10/16/2008 200000 PR 13307 -do- 11/14/2008 30000 PR 144494 -do- 01/10/2009 40000 7,58,679” Out of this amount an addition of Rs.5,10,051/- has been made during the year. The fist deposit is made on 18.01.2008. As this does not fall in the financial year relatable to the impugned assessment year, the same has to be deleted. Similar fixed deposits on 03.05.2008 of Rs.18,679/-, 18.08.2008 of Rs.25,000/-, 14.11.2008 of Rs.30,000/- and Bikkas Maitry A.Y.2009-10 3 10.01.2009 of Rs.40,000/-has to be deleted as the assessee had explained that the source of funds as opening and running cash balances. Thus this amount of Rs.4,45,000/- is deleted. The balance additon made by the AO to the extent sustained by the CIT(A) is sustained u/s 69B of the Act.

5.

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part.

Order pronounced in the Court on 31.10.2017.

More judgments on Section 69B

All 1,579 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →