BHAMATI PRADIP JOSHI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 5(2)(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3256/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2017AY 2011-126 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits in the joint account were out of previous withdrawals made from the same bank account by the assessee and other family members. Therefore, the addition confirmed by the CIT(A) was not justified.

What were the facts?

The assessee's income was enhanced by the AO by Rs. 33,81,600/- on account of cash deposits in a joint bank account. The CIT(A) reduced this addition to Rs. 18,43,000/-.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits in a joint bank account, explained as being out of prior withdrawals from the same account by joint holders, constitute unexplained income of the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “H”, BENCH MUMBAI

Before: SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM Smt. Bhamati Pradip Joshi

For Appellant: Shri B.V.Jhaveri
For Respondent: Shri M.C.Omi Ningshen
Hearing: 02/05/2017Pronounced: 25/05/2017

आदेश / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M): This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)- 45, Mumbai dated 15/02/2016 for the Assessment Year 2011-12 in the matter of order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s 147 of the IT Act. 2. In this appeal, assessee is aggrieved for addition of Rs.18,43,000/- being cash deposited into joint Bank Account of assessee with her father, mother, brother and sister-in-law. 3. Facts in brief are that the assessee is an individual working with M/s. J.P. Morgan Services Pvt. Ltd. The assessee had filed her return of income for A. Y. 2011-12 declaring total income of Rs.10,57,210/-. The Income-tax Officer while completing the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act Smt. Bhamati Pradip Joshi added Rs.33,81,600/- to the income of the assessee being the cash deposits made into the joint Bank Account of the assessee and four others with Indian Bank bearing S.B. Account No.417495808. This addition was reduced by the Commissioner (Appeals) to Rs.18,43,000/- against which the assessee is in further appeal.

4.

We have considered rival contentions and carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below. We have verified the bank summary, copy of bank passbook for the A.Y.2009-10, 2011-12 as placed on record as well as remand report of AO dated 21/12/2015 alongwith letter of JCIT dated 23/12/2015. From the record we found that in the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee had submitted that the S.B. Account bearing No.417495808'with Indian Bank was a joint account with her father, .Shri Pradeep Joshi, with her mother, Mrs. Rekha Joshi, with her brother, Shri Milind Joshi and with her sister-in-law, Mrs. Miti Joshi, which was operated by anyone of them or survivor and in fact it was operated by all the account holders. It was further explained that the aggregate sum of Rs.18,50,000/- was contributed by the following joint holders: Name Amount (Rs.) PAN Mr. Pradeep Joshi (father) 4,00,000 AABPJ 5519 Q Mr. Milind Joshi (brother) 5,00,000 AEIPJ 4798 Q Mrs.Rekha Joshi (mother) 2,50,000 AOSPJ 3035 J Mrs.Miti Joshi (sister-in-law) 4,50,000 AOZPJ 5159 A Mrs.Bhamati Joshi (assessee) 2,50,000 AFRPJ 4399 K Smt. Bhamati Pradip Joshi 5. The balance amount was deposited out of the amount withdrawn from the same bank account prior to the deposits. The aforesaid explanation of the assessee was not accepted by the AO and hence he made addition of Rs.33,81,600/- to the income of the assessee being the first holder of the joint account with Indian Bank.

6.

The CIT(A) called remand report with regard to the amount deposited in the bank account. The AO in its remand report observed that source of cash deposit of Rs.18,43,600/- was out of withdrawals of Rs.20,00,000/- from the bank account, however, the AO did not agree with the initial cash deposit of Rs.15,00,000/-, accordingly he suggested for addition of Rs.15,00,000/-.

7.

As per our considered view, since in the remand report AO has accepted deposit of Rs.18,43,600/- by the assessee and other family members having joint account holders were out of the previous withdrawals made in the month of June 2010 from the very same bank account, accordingly CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.18,43,600/- on the ground of peak amount of the deposit.

8.

From the record, we found that in case of the assessee the family wanted to make investment in immovable property in their native place and accordingly a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- was collected from all the members of the family and the same was taken by Mr. Pradeep Joshi (father) to Bhuj for striking a deal for purchase of an immovable property.

1.

Smt. Bhamati Pradip Joshi 9. As the deal could not go through, Mr. Pradeep Joshi deposited the said sum of Rs.15,00,000/- into Indian Bank account at Bhuj and Jamnagar on the following dates: 25th June, 2010 Rs.5,00,0001- at Bhuj 25th June, 2010 Rs.5,00,0001- at Jamnagar 30th June, 2010 Rs.5,00,0001- at Jamnagar

10.

A sum of Rs.3,00,000/- were transferred from the account of the assessee into this account with Indian Bank on 26th June, 2010.

11.

So far as deposit in the bank account is concerned, we found that assessee and other family members have deposited in their bank accounts out of their current income as well as out of the cash withdrawal from the very same bank account. The details of which are as under:-

Cash Credit card Gross Total Drawings (as payments, Cash deposit As per the AO's Income (as per bank electricity and made in instructions per ITR filed) statement) telephone A/c.No.417495808

Tax assessees are listed below Milind Joshi A.Y.2009-10 Rs.15,37,507 Rs.4,65,110 83,500 A.Y.2010-11 Rs.23,54,586 Rs.2,03,000 30,990 A.Y.2011-12 Rs.27,79,050 Rs.1,67,500 1,38,270 Rs.63,61,917 Rs.8,35,610 Rs.5,00,000 Pradeep Joshi A.Y.2009-10 Rs.3,34,580 Rs.2,11,000 Nil A.Y.2010-11 Rs.3,62,515 s.2,91,00 Nil A.Y.2011-12 Rs.5,92,080 Rs.3,69,850 Nil 12,89,175 Rs.8,71,850 Rs.4,00,000 Bhamati Joshi A.Y.2009-10 Rs.7,32,863 Rs.31,500 A.Y.2010-11 Rs.9,73,939 Rs.55,000 Rs.2,50,000 A.Y.2011-12 Rs.11,57,213 Rs.25,500 Rs.1,19,500

Nikesh Kabani A.Y.2009-10 Rs.7,27,395 Rs.6,93,415 A.Y.2010-11 Rs.7,56,220 Rs.5,33,049 A.Y.2011-12 Rs.12,91,821 Rs.7,57,000 27,75,436 Rs.19,83,464 Miti Joshi A.Y.2009-10 Rs.1,50,000 Rs.1,50,000 A.Y.2010-11 Rs.1,56,000 Rs.1,56,000 A.Y.2011-12 Rs.1,68,000 Rs.1,68,000 Rs.4,74,000 Rs.4,74,000 Rs.4,50,000

12.

We also found that out of the aforesaid cash available with the assessee and the members of her family, the sum of Rs.15,00,000/- was given to the said Mr. Pradeep Joshi (father) for making investment in the immovable property at the native place. The said amounts were deposited by him at Bhuj and Jamnagar into the Indian Bank account which were withdrawn by the members of the assessee's family and the said withdrawals were once again utilised along with other funds available with them in cash for making deposit of Rs.18,81,600/- in the months of October and November, 2010. This is the finding of facts recorded by the A.O. in his Remand Report. Thus the addition of Rs.18,43,000/- confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) has no legs to stand.

13.

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →