SH. JASWANT RAI,BADDI vs. ITO, BADDI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 615/CHANDI/2018Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 September 2018AY 2008-095 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the grounds related to the Rs. 4,50,000/- cash deposit, finding no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order regarding the denial of telescoping benefits. However, for the Rs. 3,43,280/- addition concerning the employee's account, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention due to lack of inquiry from the employee and restricted the addition to Rs. 50,000/-.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) on account of unexplained cash deposits in the assessee's bank account and money received in the bank account of an employee. The assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanations or documentary evidence for these deposits.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits in the assessee's bank account are income from undisclosed sources and if telescoping benefits should be allowed. Whether deposits in an employee's bank account can be treated as the assessee's income without proper inquiry.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH, ‘A’ CHANDIGARH

Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG & Dr. B.R.R. KUMAR

Hearing: 30.07.2018Pronounced: 04.09

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)’].

2.

The assessee in this appeal has taken the following grounds:-

1.

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.

2.

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.

3.

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.

4.

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.

5.

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.

3.

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.

4.

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.

5.

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

6.

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.

7.

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.

8.

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

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →