Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI ABY T VARKEY & SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA
आदेश / O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M :
This appeal is filed against the order bearing DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1042874876(1) dated 27.04.2022 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment year 2016-17. Through the aforesaid appeal the assesse has challenged order u/s 250 dated 27.04.2022 passed by NFAC, Delhi.
ITA No.687/Chny/2022 :- 2 -:
2.0 It is seen from records that there is delay of 51 days in filing of this appeal. The assesse has submitted that the delay has arisen on account of unfortunate accident of its C.A. An affidavit to this effect has been filed and the same has been placed on record. Evidences brought on record allude that there is sufficient force in the assesse’s arguments. It is trite law that no litigant benefits by causing delay in its case. The delay in filing the appeal is therefore condoned and the appeal is being adjudicated as under. 3.0 Brief factual matrix of the case is that the case was selected for scrutiny to verify the source of cash deposits of Rs.97,78,750/- in the joint savings account of the assesse with the Karur Viyas Bank. During the course of assessment proceedings the Ld. AO noted that the assesse was maintaining few other bank accounts as well. The findings of the Ld. AO given in the Assessment Order are as under: “…Apart from the above bank account, the assesse was holding the following bank accounts during the period under consideration:-
S.No. Name of the Bank A/C No. Total cash deposits (In Rs_ 1. M/s Karur Vysya Bank 1635155000052149 10000 2. M/s Karur Vysya Bank 1177155000010392 - 3. M/s Karur Vysya Bank 1635280000000402 1853700 :- 3 -:
M/s Karur Vysya Bank 1635162000004573 80000 5. M/s Karur Vysya Bank(in 1635170000003286 80000 the capacity of guardian) 6. M/s Karur Vysya Bank 1635730000000082 - (Loan account) 7. M/s Karur Vysya Bank 1635791000000043 - Loan account(joint account) 8. State Bank of India 20037060990 50000 9. Tamil Nadu Mercantile 019100050000189 - Bank (Joint account) Total 20,73,700/- The authorized representation of the assessee has furnished Cash Flow Statement to explain the source for the above cash deposits. The same is examined as under:- As per cash flow Actual on the Basis for statement basis of adopting actual furnished by the verification amounts. AR To Balance B/F 34,35,749/- 36,61,589/- Cash in hand as on 31.03.2015 as per ITR 2015- 16 To Business 8,76,906/- 5,37,402/- As per ITR Income 2016-17 To H.P.Income 3,40,000/- 3,40,000/- As per ITR 2016-17 To cash 41,10,656/- 24,00,000/- As verified from withdrawal from bank bank accounts statements. Total 87,63,311/- 69,38,991/- By Drawings 60,000/- 60,000/- As per cash flow statement By IT paid 58,000/- 58,000/- As per cash flow statement By cash deposits 24,26,119/- 20,73,700/- As verified from :- 4 -:
in bank accounts bank statements To balance C/F 62,19,193/- 46,29,292/- Cash in hand as on 31.03.2016 as per ITR: Rs,62,17,898/- In the Income Tax Return for the A.Y.2015-16, the assesse has admitted cash in hand as on 31.03.2015 at Rs.36,61,589/-. Further, in the return of income for the A.Y-2016-17, she has claimed cash in hand as on 31.03.2016 at Rs.62,17,898/-. After examination of the documents/details, the actual cash in hand as on 31.03.2016 arrived at Rs.46,29,292/- (as mentioned in the above table). Hence, as computed above there is a shortage of Rs.15,88,606/-{Rs.62,17,898/-(-) Rs.46,29,292/-}, for making cash deposits of Rs.20,73,700/- in the bank accounts..…”. 4.0 We have heard rival submissions in the light of material available on records. The only issue that has thus arisen in this case is the addition of Rs.15,88,606/- made by the Ld. AO as representing unexplained cash deposit in the bank account. The Ld. Counsel for the assesse argued that the Ld. AO has mixed up his findings and it is a case of misinterpretation of facts and figures on records. The tabular analysis made by the Ld. AO on Page-3 &4 of his order are also not clearly explanatory of conclusion drawn. The assesse has reportedly deposited cash of Rs.20,73,700/- in his bank account. The Ld. AO :- 5 -: however noted that there was a difference of Rs.15,88,606/- when a comparison was made with the cash in hand as on 31.03.2016 (Rs.62,17,898) with the cash flow statement (Rs.46,29,292). The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the Ld.AO by stating that that the case laws relied by the assesse were not relevant to the case. The Ld. Counsel for the assesse argued that the Ld. CIT(A) fail to appreciate that no proper opportunity was given by the Ld. AO before making the impugned addition. There is nothing on records to support that Ld. AO had confronted the assesse with his findings of shortage of cash of Rs.15,88,606/- before making the impugned addition.In the above background we are of the view that in the interest of justice and fair play, the assesse should get an opportunity of presenting its case before the Ld. AO proceeded to make. 5.0 Accordingly, we deem it fit to set aside the addition made by the Ld. AO and the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this account. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the lower authorities with the direction to the Ld. AO to pass an assessment order de novo. The Ld. AO would give all opportunities of being heard to the assesse and the assesse shall be duty bound to comply with all the notices and details solicited by the Ld. AO. The ground of appeal raised by the assesse qua this addition is allowed for statistical purposes.