Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” BENCH, MUMBAI
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND ASHWANI TANEJA, AM (A.Y:2011-12) Mr. Sajid Hyderali Merchant Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-5(2) Room No.571, 5 th G-5 Gulab Building, 237, P.D. Mello Road, Ballard Estate Vs. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Mumbai-400001 Road Mumbai-400020. PAN No. AJWPM4884F .. Appellant Respondent Assessee by .. Shri Rajesh Shah, AR .. Revenue by Miss. Anupama Singla, DR Date of hearing .. 23-11-2016 .. Date of pronouncement 23-11-2016 O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM:
This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of CIT (A)-9, Mumbai in appeal No. CIT(A)-9/DCIT-5(2)/584/2013-14 dated 03-11-2014. The Assessment was framed by DCIT-5(2), Mumbai for the A.Y. 2011-12 vide order dated 21-01-2014under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’).
The only issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the addition made by AO being cash deposits in bank account as unaccounted income amounting to Rs.25.98 lacs.
We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We find that the assessee has deposited cash in his SB A/c in Punjab and Maharashtra co-operative Bank Ltd. as per AIR information. Before AO, assessee has not furnished any source of deposit of cash or could not co-relate the withdrawals with deposits and hence, the AO treated the entire cash deposit as unexplained income of the assessee amounting to Rs.25.98 lacs. Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A) and before CIT(A) also the assessee could not co-relate the withdrawals vis-à-vis the deposits made in the bank A/c. The CIT(A) confirmed the action of AO in Para 5.2 as under: -
“After consideration the rival submission it is noted that there are forty-two deposits of Rs25,98,000/ from April 2010 to March 2011 ranging from Rs.300/- to Rs.2.82,0001 - on various dates It is the claim of the appellant that it has cash withdrawals during this period of almost equal amount from his Bank account. The explanation of the appellant that due to travelling most of the time it had left singed cheque book with staff, who used to withdraw amounts does not appear convincing because neither any staff member is identified by the appellant to whom he had given such signed cheque book, nor this plea is convincing that any member of staff can withdraw cash from one account just to deposit is in other account. Nobody would like to keep signed cheque book so freely with stall except under some pressing emergency situations. This explanation does not appear correct on the test of human probabilities. Therefore, considering all these factors in totality, it can safely be concluded that the appellant's version that the cash deposits of the account in question have come out of the earlier withdrawals from other account does not appeal- convincing at all. Under these circumstances, the huge cash deposits of Rs,25,98,000/- remains unexplained. The addition of unexplained cash deposits made by the A.O. is therefore confirmed as the appellant does not have satisfactory explanation.” Aggrieved, now assessee is in second appeal before Tribunal.
We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We find that even now before us assessee could not co- relate the deposits vis-à-vis withdrawals to explain the cash deposits, but the assessee undertook before us that he is ready to co-relate these entries. When the Bench enquire, the senior DR conceded the same and the learned DR stated that the issue may be remitted back to the file of AO for adjudication afresh, in case assessee undertake to co-relate these entries. In view of the above submissions of both the sides, we are of the view that, as we have no mechanism to verify cash withdrawals or deposits and hence to verify the same, better we restore the matter back to the file of AO to examine the same, i.e. cash withdrawals vis-a-vis the cash deposits and incomes. In case, assessee is able to explain and co-relate withdrawals and deposits, the AO will accept the plea of the assessee and accordingly, he will decide the issue. Appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 23-11-2016.