CHELLADURAI PUTHARASU,COIMBATORE, TAMILNADU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NON CORPORATE WARD FIVE (THREE), COIMBATORE

The ld. AR Shri P.M. Kathir, Advocate submits that the assessee worked as cashier in a Delhi based transport company T & S Logistics Pvt. Ltd. The said employer of the assessee was in the business of transporting materials from one place to another through trucks all over the country. The assessee’s duty was to pay cash for day-to-day activities of the branch office like wages for loading, unloading & advance lorry freights to Lorries along with wages to labour, advance lorry freight, local conveyance to staff, telephone bill, office rent and monthly salary to staff its branch. The said cash transactions are accounted in cash vouchers and the cash statements were sent to its regional office at Bangalore on weekend. Further, he stated that the assessee used to withdraw amounts from company’s account and after meeting daily expenses deposit the cash in his savings bank account with ICICI bank for safety purpose. The ld. AR argued that the assessee was a salaried person and last drawn salary from his employer of ₹.10,000/- p.m. inclusive of all allowance. The assessee has no other personal business and his source of income is only from salary from the above said company. The ld. AR drew our attention to the bank statement from pages 15 to 25 of the appeal memo and submits that the said account clearly shows cash withdrawn from ATM, cash withdrawn 3-4 times daily and deposits the surplus amount in his savings bank account. Further, he referred to page No. 29 and submits that the said correspondence clearly shows that the assessee was in accounts division. He referred to page 27 and submits that the assessee handed over balance cash as well as unused self cheques on his resignation. He vehemently argued that the assessee is a small salaried person and deposited cash in his savings bank account for convenience and security and prayed to allow the ground of appeal and delete the addition confirmed by the ld. CIT(A).

The ld. DR Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT submits that the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) has given ample opportunities to the assessee and the assessee did not avail the same by making compliance with the objections raised by the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A). She vehemently argued that there was no basis for the arguments made by the ld. AR and the ground raised by the assessee deserves to be dismissed.

Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that the assessee worked as a cashier in a branch transport company in Coimbatore of T & S Logistics Pvt. Ltd. having head office at New Delhi. The assessee explained reasons for depositing cash in his savings bank account for convenience and safety purposes. On perusal of the bank statement as provided at page 15 to 25 of the appeal memo, shows about ATM withdrawals 3-4 times in a day and depositing the surplus after 3rd or 4th day, which consequently supports the arguments of the ld. AR that the assessee was depositing surplus amount in his bank account after making cash transactions by way of payment of wages for loading, unloading, wages to labour, advance lorry freight, telephone bill, local conveyance to staff, office rent and monthly salary to staff, etc. The Assessing Officer did not dispute the activity of the employee and duties of the assessee with his employer. Further, pages 19 & 20 of the paper book show the employer of the assessee was a Private Limited Company having its registered office in New Delhi, which is under liquidation. On perusal of the impugned order, we note that the assessee reiterated the same submissions as made before this Tribunal as well as authorities below. We find the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) did not accept the submissions of the assessee only on the ground that assessee could not furnish details showing nexus between the submissions of the assessee and cash deposit as found in the savings bank account. As discussed above, we find that the assessee made out a case by showing details by withdrawing cash from bank account and deposit after meeting daily miscellaneous expenses. Therefore, we find force in the arguments of the ld. AR that all the cash deposits as found in the assessee’s savings bank account belongs to the assessee’s employer and no way connected with the assessee. Thus, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of undisclosed source of income. Thus, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the addition made by the Assessing Officer is deleted. Consequently, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on 16th October, 2024 at Chennai.