MITHALAL VAGTAJI MALI,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CIRCLE 9 (2), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the matter should be remanded back to the AO. The AO is directed to consider the assessee's request for 'telescopy' upon furnishing cash purchase bills and to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
What were the facts?
The assessee deposited Rs. 45 lakhs in cash into their bank account. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of this amount as cash credit due to lack of explanation. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition, denying the benefit of 'telescopy' (offsetting cash deposits against withdrawals).
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee is entitled to the benefit of 'telescopy' for cash deposits against withdrawals, and whether the addition made by the AO on account of cash credit is justified without considering such offsetting.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO
अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant by : Mr. Rashmikant C. Modi & Ms. Rashmi Modi प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent by : Ms. Beena Santosh, DR सुनवाई की तायीख / Date of Hearing : 29.03.2017 घोषणा की तायीख /Date of Pronouncement : 12.04.2017 आदेश / O R D E R
PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM:
This appeal filed by the assessee on 2.5.2016 is against the order of the CIT (A)-32, Mumbai dated 16.2.2016 for the assessment year 2009-2010.
In this appeal, assessee raised four grounds in toto and they revolve around the correctness of addition on account of cash credit without granting the benefit of telescopy. Basic facts include that the assessee holds bank account in ICICI Bank and he deposited cash on various dates in the year under consideration. The gross amount of such credits works out to Rs. 45 lakhs (rounded of). Nobody was present before the AO during the assessment proceedings with any explanation / details. Thus, assessment resulted in addition of Rs. 45 lakhs (rounded of). Matter travelled to the first appellate authority. 3. During the first appellate authority, assessee filed written submissions and eventually requested for telescopy of cash deposits against the cash withdrawals appeared in the said Bank Account of the assessee. As discussed in para 7 of the order of the CIT (A), the additional evidences were admitted and remand report was called for from the AO. On considering the said report, CIT (A) held that the assessee failed to produce cash sale bills and cash purchase bills. Not even the books of accounts were supplied. Therefore, CIT (A) confirmed the addition and also denied the benefit of telescopy. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
During the proceedings before the Tribunal, Ld Counsel for the assessee submitted that the matter may be remanded back to the file of the AO with a direction to consider the request for telescopy when the cash purchase bills are furnished.
After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the orders of the Revenue Authorities as well as the relevant material placed before us, I am of the opinion, as prayed by the Ld AR, the matter is required to be remanded to the file of the AO with a request for telescopy. I order accordingly. AO shall grant a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee as per the set principles of natural justice. Assessee is also directed to furnish the cash purchase bills to demonstrate that the withdrawn cash was found way back into the bank account. Assessing Officer is free to confirm the addition in case the cash purchases are NIL during the year or assessee fails to discharge the onus satisfactorily. With these directions, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 12th April, 2017. Sd/- (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER भुंफई Mumbai; ददनांक 12.04.2017 व.नन.स./ OKK , Sr. PS आदेश की प्रतिलऱपि अग्रेपिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अऩीराथी / The Appellant 1. 2. प्रत्मथी / The Respondent. आमकय आमुक्त(अऩीर) / The CIT(A)- 3. आमकय आमुक्त / CIT 4.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Smt Usha W/O Shri Tarun vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Rentex Polymers Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxDelhi · 29 Oct 2026
- Ajay Kumar @ Ajay Sharma vs. Union Of INDIA Rep Thr The Intelligence Officer, Directorate General Of GST Intelligence (Dggi)Jharkhand · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Shila Traders vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 29 Oct 2026