Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘ C’ BENCH (SMC
Before: SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE
आदेश / O R D E R
In this appeal filed by the assessee, it assails an addition of �4,50,000/- for deposits in bank accounts which was treated by the ld. Assessing Officer as unexplained. The addition was confirmed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Chennai vide impugned order dated 23.05.2016.
ITA No.2191/Mds/2016. :- 2 -:
Ld. Authorised Representative submitted that deposits of �2,90,000/- with M/s. Lakshmi Vilas Bank and �1,60,000/- with M/s.
HDFC Bank were not unexplained. As per ld. Authorised Representative assessee had sufficient source by way of Provident Fund, advance on sale of flat and refunds received from one M/s. Sree Constructions. As per ld. Authorised Representative there were no cash deposits in the bank account but all credits were by cheques or transfers. Even renewal of deposits were considered as unexplained investments. Ld. Authorised Representative submitted that assessee was a retired employee of M/s. Computer Graphics India Limited.
Contention of the ld. Authorised Representative was that deposits which were treated as unexplained was only rotation of deposits between two banks. As per ld. Authorised Representative if given a chance assessee could show that deposits had proper source.
Per contra, ld. Departmental Representative strongly supported the orders of the authorities below.
.I have considered the rival contentions and perused the 4. orders of the authorities below. Addition was made considering deposits aggregating to �2,90,000/- in M/s. Lakshmi Vilas Bank and �1,60,000/- in HDFC as unexplained. Contention of the ld. Authorised Representative is that assessee was a retired employee of M/s.
Computer Graphics India Limited and source of the deposits were . :- 3 -: advance for sale of flat, refund from one M/s. Sree Construction apart from Provident Fund benefits received by the assessee at the time of retirement. As per ld. Authorised Representative none of the deposits were in cash. We find that ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had rejected the contentions of the assessee for a reason that assessee was unable to correlate the deposits. I am of the opinion that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the matter requires a fresh look by the ld. Assessing Officer. We set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remit the issue regarding source of deposits in bank accounts of the assessee with Lakshmi Vilas Bank and HDFC Bank 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 5. statistical purpose.