Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ (SMC
Before: SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE]
आदेश / O R D E R
In this appeal filed by the assessee, it aggrieved on an addition of �2,79,408/- made by the ld. Assessing Officer as unexplained cash deposits.
Facts apropos are that assessee a Non-Resident had filed 2. return of income for the impugned assessment year declaring ‘’Nil’’ income. Ld. Assessing Officer was of the opinion that assessee had ITA No. 1246/Mds/2016 :- 2 -: made cash deposits in his bank account during the relevant previous year. Assessee was required to explain the source for such deposits.
From the balance sheet filed by the assessee alongwith its return for assessment year 2010-2011, it was noted by the ld. Assessing Officer that assessee had a cash balance of �2,07,446/- as on 31.03.2010.
However, the cash deposits by the assessee in the bank account as on 03.06.2010 came to �4,86,584/-. As per ld. Assessing Officer, assessee could not produce any evidence for the shortfall of �2,79,408/-. An addition of �2,79,410/- was made as unexplained investments and assessment was accordingly completed.
In its appeal before ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) argument of the assessee was that shortfall represented cash pooled by the family members of the assessee deposited in assessee’s bank account. Contention of the assessee was that he had gone to Australia for higher studies, and the business earlier carried out in his name was continued by his father who had pooled such amount and deposited in his account. However, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) did not accept this contention. According to him, such explanations could not be accepted in the eyes of law. He confirmed the addition.
ITA No. 1246/Mds/2016 :- 3 -:
Now before me, ld. Authorised Representative filed an affidavit of Shri. Umed C. Mehta father of the assessee. According to him, Shri. Umed C. Mehta had informed that the difference represented money belongs to members of his family. Thus according to him, addition was unfairly done.
Per contra, ld. Departmental Representative strongly supported the orders of the authorities below.
I have considered the rival contentions and perused the 6. orders of the authorities below. Relevant part of the Affidavit filed by Shri. Umed C. Mehta is reproduced hereunder:-
‘’Mr.Vishal Umed Mehta is assessed to Income Tax in the capacity as an individual. He carries on business of Electronics & funding His PAN No. is AADPM2072R. For the assessment y4ear 2011-12, the return of income was filed on 04/05/2012 admitting NIL income, after adjustment of current year's loss. The Assessing Officer, based on the information of AIR, noticed that a sum of Rs.279,410/-.was deposited in the bank account of the appellant I was maintaining his bank account in the capacity of the power of attorney holder, including the accounts of other family members and cash kept in common for all family members as they were residing abroad. During the period May 2010 to July 2010, I was not keeping good health, suffering from frozen shoulder & severe backache and I had to be treated for ailments in Mumbai, by an Ayurvedic orthopaedist and was asked to take complete rest & treatment in my house by my doctors. I was staying with my daughter Anju Jitender Kothari, at D-416, Raj Garden, Kandivali West, Mumbai 400 067. During the said period, I needed cash for meeting my personal expenses. On 03/06/2010, I requested our nephew Mr. Praveenchand Nahar s/o Sri Gouthamchand Nahar, residing & carrying out business at Hira Mansion, 20 General Muthia Mudali Street, Sowcarpet,
ITA No. 1246/Mds/2016 :- 4 -:
Chennai-600078 to collect cash lying in my safe & deposit cash which sum, belongs to all members of the family( details of the family members are attached separately), Mr.S.Gunabalan an employee of Mr.Praveenchand Nahar, on instructions from Praveenchand Nahar .collected the cash and deposited the same in the said account bearing SB A/e. No. 481125363.in the Indian Bank, Sowcarpet, Chennai-600078. As there was no internet banking facility available to these accounts cash was remitted to meet the commitment.
I had submitted before the Assessing Officer, the above said explanations. The same were not favourably considered by the Assessing Officer and it made an addition in the income tax assessment and brought to tax a sum of ₹279,410/- under the head income from other soruces. However, the loss returned continued to be the same deposits the addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer as he had not allowed set off of the same against the income from other sources.
I filed an appeal before the CIT(A) and appeared on 07/01/2016, .the CIT(A) did not give any further hearing but proceeded to pass the order confirming the order passed by the Assessing Officer. I made a specific submission before the CIT(A) that I was not keeping good health and that I would file further information in this regard to substantiate the bonafides of the circumstances in which I was placed to request our family friend to collect the cash from our near and dear members of the family and deposit it in the bank account of the appellant. I submit that I have gathered all the information in this regard I would wish to bring on record this averment in this affidavit to prove my explanations adduced before the lower authorities. I am praying for the indulgence of this Hon'ble Bench of the Tribunal to kindly give me an opportunity of being heard and to direct the lower authorities to consider my plea relating to the cash credit in question and render justice’’.
Considering the facts and circumstances explained in the affidavit and also the fact that assessee was a Non-Resident during the relevant period, I am of the opinion that rules of justice will be met if assessee
ITA No. 1246/Mds/2016 :- 5 -: is given one more opportunity to explain the source of deposits in bank account. According, I set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remit the issue back to the file of the ld. Assessing Officer for consideration afresh in accordance with law.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for 7. statistical purpose.
Order pronounced on Wednesday, the 25th day of January , 2017, at Chennai.