Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH, ‘A’ CHANDIGARH
Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG & Dr. B.R.R. KUMAR
Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against
the order dated 26.02.2018 of the Commissioner of Income Tax(A),
Palampur [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’].
The assessee in this appeal has taken the following grounds:-
That having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming additions of Rs. 4,50,000/- u/s 69 of the Act made by Ld. Assessing Officer on account of cash deposit in the bank account of the assessee as income from undisclosed sources and that too by assuming the same to be a cash credit.
That having regard to facts and circumstances of
ITA No. 615/Chd/2018- Shri Jaswant Rai, Baddi, H.P. 2
the case, Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in not allowing the benefit of telescoping against Rs. 4,50,000/- cash deposit in bank as claimed by the assessee more-so in ignorance of facts of the case and submissions made.
That having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming additions of Rs. 3,43,280/- u/s 69A of the Act made by Ld. Assessing Officer on account of money received in the bank account in the name of Shri Paramjit Singh and that too by recording incorrect facts.
That in any view of the matter and in any case the action of the Ld. CIT (A) in confirming the addition made is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case.
That having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the order of Ld. Assessing Officer flouting the principles of natural justice by passing an order without considering the submissions made by the assessee. material on record, recording incorrect facts and without appreciating the complete facts and circumstances of the case.
Ground Nos.1 & 2 :- The assessee has agitated the addition
made by the Assessing officer and further confirmed by the CIT(A)
u/s 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') of an amount
of Rs. 4,50,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposits found in
the bank account of the assessee and further not allowing the benefit
of telescoping against the said cash deposited.
ITA No. 615/Chd/2018- Shri Jaswant Rai, Baddi, H.P. 3
On being asked to explain, the assessee could not give
satisfactory reply in this respect. Earlier, he stated that it was out of
the cash in hand. However, he could not submit any cash flow
statement or documentary evidence about the said source of cash.
Later on, in the appellate proceedings before the CIT(A), a general
and vague submission was made that cash withdrawals had also been
made by the assessee from the bank account prior to the deposits.
However, no relevant evidence in support of the above claim was
made.
Even before us, the assessee could not address any satisfactory
argument / reply on this issue. So far as the plea of the benefit of the
above addition is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that assessee
had already been granted the benefit of cash availability / telescoping
of assessed income of Rs. 2,73,950/- while deciding the ground Nos.
1 & 2 of the appeal of the assessee and that since no further
availability of cash remains to set off this addition made by the
Assessing officer on unexplained cash credit of Rs. 4,50,000/-,
hence, there was no question of any telescoping benefit in this
respect. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) in
this respect also.
These grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are hereby
dismissed.
Ground No. 3: Vide this ground the assessee has agitated the
confirmation of addition of Rs. 3,43,280/- made by the Assessing
officer u/s 69A of the Act.
ITA No. 615/Chd/2018- Shri Jaswant Rai, Baddi, H.P. 4
The brief facts relating to the issue are that a sum of Rs.
50,000/- was credited / transferred to the account of the assessee by
an employee of the assessee namely Shri Paramjit Singh. The
Assessing officer made inquiries and found that assessee was the
introducer of the bank account of his employee. He treating the entire
deposits in the bank account of the assessee namely Shri Paramjit
Singh as undisclosed deposits / income of the assessee deposited in
the name of his employee Sh. Paramjit Singh. However, no enquiries
were made from Shri Paramjit Singh in this respect. The Ld. Counsel
for the assessee has explained that the assessee was introducer /
witness to the account as Shri Paramjit Singh who was an employee,
however, there was no evidence on the file that deposits found in the
bank account of Sh. Paramjit Singh belonged to the assessee.
We find force in the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the
assessee especially in the absence of any corroborative evidence for
the lower authorities to link the deposits found in the bank account
of Shri Paramjit Singh to the assessee without any enquiry being
made from Shri Paramjit Singh in this respect. However, we find
force in the contention of the Ld. DR that the assessee could not
explain the transaction of deposit of Rs. 50,000/- by Shri Paramjit
Singh in the bank account of the assessee.
In view of this, the addition of this account is restricted to
Rs. 50,000/- which was found transferred into the account of the
assessee from the account of Shri Paramjit Singh. This ground is
therefore, treated as partly allowed.
ITA No. 615/Chd/2018- Shri Jaswant Rai, Baddi, H.P. 5
No other ground or issue was pressed before us. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 04.09.2018
Sd/- Sd/- (B.R.R KUMAR) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 04.09.2018 Rkk
Copy to: • The Appellant • The Respondent • The CIT • The CIT(A) • The DR