MG. PARTNER, M/S. FAIR DEALING TRADING COMPANY,ATTINGAL vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), TRIVANDRUM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 22/COCH/2024Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 November 2024AY 2014-2015Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member), Shri Amarjit Singh (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of some cash receipts and cash in hand, and therefore, restricted the addition to Rs. 62,90,000 in the interest of justice.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged an addition of Rs. 77.90 lakh for unexplained specified bank notes deposits. The assessee attributed the source to loans, gifts, and revenue receipts, but the lower authorities found the explanation insufficient.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition for unexplained bank note deposits was justified and if the assessee provided sufficient explanation for the source of funds.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN

Before: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

Hearing: 23.08.2024Pronounced: 07.11.2024

O R D E R Per Bench : This assessee’s appeal in for assessment year 2017-2018 arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) / NFAC vide DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1058279502(1) dated 11.12.2023, in proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act” hereinafter.

2.

It emerges at the outset that the assessee’s sole substantive ground challenges unexplained specified bank notes deposits addition of Rs.77.90 lakh made in the course of assessment dated 16.12.2019, upheld by the CIT(A) in the lower appellate discussion. Learned counsel vehemently supports the assessee’s pleadings seeking to delete the entire addition amount.

1.

. Padmavathy Medical Foundation. 3. The Revenue, on the other hand, invited our attention to assessment findings wherein the assessee has attributed the source of the impugned sum under various heads, i.e., loans and gifts alongwith regular revenue receipts in hospital business.

4.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the foregoing rival stands and prima facie we note that the assessee has not been able to support its above explanation of the cash deposits, in the lower proceedings. The facts however remains possibility of some cash receipts/respective heads and cash in hand could not be altogether ruled out in such instance.

5.

Faced with this situation, we restrict the impugned addition to Rs.62,90,000 in larger interest of justice in the given facts and circumstances of the case. The assessee gets relief of Rs.15 lakh in other words. Necessary computation shall follow as per law in very terms. Ordered accordingly.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →