Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(Appeals) confirming an addition of Rs.13,83,000 made by the AO under section 68 for cash deposits during the demonetization period. There was a delay of 58 days in filing the appeal, which was condoned by the Tribunal.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the details submitted by the assessee regarding the cash deposits were not doubted or examined by the lower authorities. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the AO for verification of these details.
Key Issues
Whether the addition made by the AO under section 68 for cash deposits during demonetization is justified without proper verification of assessee's submitted details.
Sections Cited
68
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K. & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU
Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 08.09.2023 of the CIT(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [NFAC] for the AY 2017-18.
At the outset, there is a delay of 58 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed application for condonation and affidavit stating that the assessee has not received any communication of order CIT(Appeals) and came to know about it only when the OGE dated 31-10-2023 was passed on intimated on 16.11.2023. Subsequently the appeal was filed before the Tribunal. Due to these reasons, there was delay in filing the appeal and condonation of delay was requested for.
After hearing both the parties, we note that there was reasonable cause in belated filing of appeal before the Tribunal and following the Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji and Others (1987) 167 ITR 471, we condone the delay.
The sole and substantive issue raised by the assessee is regarding addition made by the AO u/s. 68 towards cash deposited by the members during the demonetization period and deposited into bank account. In response to show cause notice the assessee furnished reply which was not accepted by the AO. Accordingly the AO made addition u/s. 68 of Rs.13,83,000 in regard to cash deposits during the demonetization period. The CIT(Appeals) confirmed the addition.
The ld. AR submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings the assessee provided details of members from whom the amounts were deposited in SBNs and the bank accounts in which the amount was deposited, name and other details were submitted which has not been denied by both the authorities. The addition made by AO has been confirmed by the CIT(Appeals) without verifying the details submitted. He submitted that the assessee accepted cash from members only from 9.11.2016 to 14.11.2016. The amounts were deposited by the members in their accounts only and in respect of this argument he relied on the coordinate Bench decision in the case of Merchants Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. vs ITO in dated 24.08.2023.
The ld. DR relied on the order of the lower authorities.
After considering the rival submissions, we note that the details submitted by the assessee are not doubted and are not examined at any level by both the authorities. Therefore we remit this issue to the AO for verification of the details submitted by the assessee as per requirement of section 68 and decide the issue as per judgment relied by the ld. AR of the assessee quoted supra in the case of Merchants Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. vs ITO . The assessee is directed to comply with the notices of the AO and not seek unnecessary adjournment for early disposal of the case.
In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.