CHANDRASEKARAN,PONDICHERRY vs. ITO, WARD-4, , PUDCHERRY

PDF · subscribers
ITA 496/CHNY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 May 2024AY 2017-18Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee received retirement benefits and made cash withdrawals. Considering these facts, the Tribunal restricted the addition to Rs. 4.95 Lacs, deleting the balance Rs. 5 Lacs.

What were the facts?

The assessee deposited Rs. 11.95 Lacs in cash post-demonetization. The assessee claimed this was from unutilized retirement benefits given to relatives, which were returned. The AO added this as unexplained income, and the CIT(A) restricted it to Rs. 9.95 Lacs.

What were the issues?

Whether the cash deposits made post-demonetization are unexplained income, and if so, to what extent can the addition be sustained considering the assessee's prior retirement benefits and withdrawals.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM & HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM

O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 arises out of an passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] on 28-12-2023 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s 143(3) of the Act on 08-12-2019. Having heard rival submissions, the appeal is disposed-off as under. The assessee being resident individual is a salaried person 2. During assessment proceedings, it transpired that the assessee deposited cash in his bank account for Rs.11.95 Lacs post- demonetization. The assessee submitted that the retirement benefits received during financial year 2012-13 were withdrawn which could not be utilized. This amount was given to relatives and friends. During demonetization, the money was received back and the same was deposited in the bank account. However, rejecting the same, Ld. AO added the same as unexplained income u/s 69A. The Ld. CIT(A) held that normal cash balance could be Rs.2 Lacs and accordingly, restricted the impugned addition to Rs.9.95 Lacs. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.

3.

It could be seen that except for mere submissions, the assessee was unable to prove the source of cash deposits. However, it is a fact that the assessee has received retirement benefits of over Rs.16 Lacs during financial years 2011-12 & 2012-13. It has deposited cash in 5 bank accounts / post office post-demonetization as is evident from Page No.2 of the paper-book. Upon perusal of cash flow statement, it could be seen that the assessee has withdrawn certain amount during this financial year which, to some extent, could be accepted to be the source of impugned deposits. Considering the facts of the case, we restrict the impugned additions to Rs.4.95 Lacs and delete balance additions of Rs.5 Lacs. No further relief could be granted to the assessee.

4.

The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order. Order pronounced on 7th May, 2024 Sd/- Sd/- (MANU KUMAR GIRI) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) �ाियक सद# / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद# / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे4ई Chennai; िदनांक Dated : 07-05-2024 DS आदेशकी@ितिलिपअ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. � थ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु=/CIT 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR 5. गाडBफाईल/GF

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →