MAHABAL BACHA SALIAN,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 26(1)(3) NOW ITO WD WD 34(2)(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1972/MUM/2015Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 November 2016AY 2010-114 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not examined the evidence provided by the assessee, including confirmations from Mr. Tawade and the assessee's mother, and details of agricultural land. Therefore, the matter was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee deposited Rs. 13.40 lacs in cash into his bank account. He claimed the cash was received from a colleague, Mr. HK Tawade, for land purchase, and Rs. 2 lacs from his mother out of agricultural income, with the balance from past savings. The AO and CIT(A) added this amount as unexplained cash credit.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of Rs. 13.40 lacs as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 was justified without properly examining the evidence provided by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

Assessee by .. None Revenue by .. Vishwas S. Jadhar – JT CIT .. Date of hearing 31-10-2016 Date of pronouncement .. 04-11-2016 O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM:

This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of CIT (A)-28, Mumbai in appeal No. CIT (A)-28/ITO/26(1)(3)/268/2013-14 dated 29-04-14. The Assessment was framed by ITO Ward 26(1)(3), Mumbai for the AY 2010-11 vide order dated 28-03-2013 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’).

2.

The only issue in this appeal of the assessee is against the order of CIT (A) confirming the action of the AO in making addition of unexplained cash credit amounting to Rs. 13.40 lacs u/s 68 of the Act. For this assessee has raised following ground:-

1. The Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals has erred in confirming the order of the Income Tax Office rof making addition of Rs. 13.40 lacs u/s 68 disregarding the evidences produced during the Appellate proceedings.

3.

The facts leading to the above issues are that the department received AIR information that the assessee has deposited cash in his bank account maintained with the Vijaya Bank SB A/C No. 504401010012562, Vashi Branch amounting to Rs.16,90 lacs during the period from 01-04-2009 to 31-03-2010. The AO

12-10-2009 amounted to Rs. 3 lacs and on 09-01-2010 amounting to Rs. 50,000/-. Accordingly, he allowed the rebate of these withdrawals and required the assessee to explain the balance cash of Rs. 13.40 lacs. The assessee explained that the cash was a received from his colleague, Mr. HK Tawade, who wanted to purchase land at village Navanda Post, Kundapura, Udipi Taluk, Karnataka and the same was deposited in assessee’s bank A/c maintained with Vijaya Bank. The AO in the absence any documentary evidence of sources of cash, made addition of the said amount of Rs. 13.40 lacs as unexplained cash deposit u/s 68 of the Act. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT (A), who also confirmed the action of AO on the same reasoning. Aggrieved, assessee is in second appeal before Tribunal.

4.

I have heard learned senior DR and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. I have gone through the submissions made by assessee before the lower authorities and noticed that the assessee was employed with Hindustan Petroleum and his colleague from Hindustan Petroleum, Mr. H.K. Tawade wanted to buy Agricultrual land at assessee’s native place through Assessee only. The assessee claimed that Mr. HK Tawade was known only to assessee and accordingly native place people informed the assessee that they will deal only in cash. Hence, Mr. HK Tawde paid money to assessee by bearer cheque as under :-

Date Cheque Number Amount 10-08-2009 454287 5,00,000/- (encashed on 11-08-2009) 12-01-2010 454298 5,00,000/-

I find from the facts of the case that Mr. HK Tawde has issue cheques from his bank A/c maintained with ICICI Bank and filed copy of the bank A/c before the lower authorities. The above amounts were deposited by assessee in his bank account alongwith cash of Rs. 2,00,000/- which he had received from his mother from native place out of their agricultural income. His mother has confirmed this fact by filing a confirmation before lower authorities. This is also supported by confirmation letter from Gram Panchayat regarding holding of Agricultural Lands and coconut produce. I find from the facts of the case that Mr. HK Tawade has given confirmation for Rs. 10,00,000/-, and the complete detail of sources are as under:-

The reconciliation of cash deposit is as under:-

Amount received from Mr. Tawde 10,00,000/- Amount received from his mother 2,00,000/- 12,00,000/- Balance out of past savings and agricultural income 1,40,000/- 13,40,000/- 5. I find from the above facts that none of the authorities below have examined these facts, and in the interest of natural justice, I set aside the order of the lower authorities and remand the matter back to the file of the AO for afresh adjudication after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Hence the matter is remitted back to the file of the AO and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 04 -11-2016.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →