Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘A(SMC
Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXXVI, Kolkata dated 30.06.2014 and the grounds raised by the assessee therein read as under:- “(1) For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order of the Ld. ITO u/s 143(3) dated 31.12.2010.
(2) For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law in passing the order without giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
(3) For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the addition of total cash deposits made in the undisclosed Bank a/c of the assessee, including interest there on u/s. 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs.I0,93,032/- instead of disallowing the peak credit in the bank alc amounting to Rs.4,42,141/-, is bad in law.
./2014 Assessment year: 2008-2009 Page 2 of 4
(4) For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the disallowance of interest amounting to Rs.3,83,310/- for non-deduction of TDS u/s 40(a)(ia) without giving an opportunity to the assessee of being heard and without taking into account Form 15G submitted by the payee, is bad in law.
Grounds No. 1 & 5 raised by the assessee in this appeal are general in nature, which do not call for any specific adjudication.
Ground No. 2 raised by the assessee in this appeal has not been pressed by the ld. counsel for the assessee at the time of hearing. The same is accordingly dismissed as not pressed.
The facts apropos the issue involved in Ground No. 3 are that the assessee is an individual, who is engaged in the business of trading of Computer Accessories. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by him on 30.09.2009 declaring total income of Rs.2,12,740/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed by the Assessing Officer that the Savings Bank Account maintained by the assessee with ICICI Bank had not been disclosed in the books of account. Since the cash deposits made in the said account aggregating to Rs.10,85,445/- could not be explained by the assessee satisfactorily, the Assessing Officer held that the said deposits were made by the assessee out of his undisclosed income. Accordingly, the cash deposits to Rs.10,85,445/- made by the assessee in his Bank account with ICICI Bank were treated by the Assessing Officer as his unexplained investment and the same was added by him to the total income of the assessee under section 69.
The addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 69 on account of unexplained deposits found to be made in his Bank account was challenged by the assessee in the appeal filed before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and it was pleaded by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) that the addition on account of unexplained cash deposits ./2014 Assessment year: 2008-2009 Page 3 of 4 found to be made in his Bank account should be quantified on the basis of peak credit. This plea of the assessee was not found acceptable by the ld. CIT(Appeals). According to him, peak credit was not a proposition of law and the same could not be adopted when withdrawals from the Bank account were utilized for making investment or personal expenses.
I have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. As pointed out by the ld. counsel for the assessee from the copy of the relevant Bank account maintained with ICICI Bank placed at page no. 1 to 6 of his paper book, there were substantial cash withdrawals made from the said account during the year under consideration. This being so, the amounts withdrawn by the assessee from the bank account as available at the time of corresponding deposits made in cash in the same Bank account can go to explain the source of such deposits provided such withdrawals are not utilized by the assessee for making any investment or for meeting any personal expenses. As rightly contended by the ld. D.R., this aspect, however, requires verification and since the same has not been done either by the Assessing Officer or by the ld. CIT(Appeals), I consider it just and proper to restore this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding the same afresh after such verification. Ground No. 3 is accordingly treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes.
As regards the issue involved in Ground No. 4 relating to the disallowance of Rs.3,83,310/- made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, it is observed that the said disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer on account of interest paid by the assessee without deduction of tax at source. The ld. CIT(Appeals) also confirmed the said disallowance as the assessee could not produce any evidence to support and substantiate his claim that the declarations in Form No. 15-G were obtained from the concerned parties and the same were filed with the Office of the concerned ld. CIT within the due date. At the time of hearing, the assessee ./2014 Assessment year: 2008-2009 Page 4 of 4 has filed before me the copies of relevant declarations obtained in Form No. 15G along with the proof of filing the same before the concerned ld. CIT within the due date as additional evidence. He has also filed an application seeking admission of the said additional evidence and keeping in view the reasons given therein as well as taking into consideration the relevance of the additional evidence filed by the assessee, I admit the same. Since the said additional evidence requires verification by the Assessing Officer as rightly contended by the ld. D.R., I restore this issue also to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding the same afresh after verifying the additional evidence filed by the assessee. Ground No. 4 is accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on September 28, 2016.