MEGHRAJ KATELA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-3(3), BHUBANESWAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 67/CTK/2017Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack26 May 2017AY 2012-134 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal confirmed the addition of Rs. 5,00,000 as unexplained investment. The assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanation or documentary evidence for the difference in cash balances.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer added Rs. 5,00,000 as unexplained investment based on a cash deposit in the assessee's bank account. The assessee claimed it was from the opening balance, but the CIT(A) found a significant discrepancy between the closing balance of the previous year and the opening balance of the current year.

What were the issues?

Whether the cash deposit in the bank account was adequately explained by the assessee, and if the discrepancy in cash balances was satisfactorily addressed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK

Before: SHRI N.S SAINI

For Appellant: Shri Biswa Ranjan Pattnaik, AR
For Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR
Pronounced: 26/05/2017

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)-2,

Bhubaneswar, dated 21.11.2016, for the assessment year 2012-13.

2.

The sole issue involved in this appeal is that the ld CIT(A) erred in

confirming the addition of Rs.5,00,000.00 made by the Assessing Officer

u/s.69 of the Act.

3.

I have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders of lower

authorities and materials available on record. The undisputed facts of the

2 ITA No. 67/ CTK/2017 Asse ssment Year : 20 12- 201 3 case are that the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has

deposited Rs.5,00,000/- on 31.5.2011 in his saving bank account with

ICICI Bank. The Assessing Officer further observed that the assessee has

tried to explain the cash deposit on the basis of cooked up cash book/cash

account without any documentary evidence. Therefore, he added

Rs.5,00,000/- as unexplained investment u/s.69 of the Act.

4.

On appeal before the CIT(A), the assessee filed cash book for the

period 1.4.2011 to 31.3.2012 relevant to assessment year 2012-13. The

assessee explained that the cash deposit of Rs.5,00,000/- was from the

opening balance as on 1.4.2011 of Rs.5,87,561.57 . The assessee also filed

cash book for the earlier financial year for the period 1.4.2010 to

31.3.2011. He observed that the closing balance as on 31.3.2011 was

Rs.43,202.80 whereas the opening balance as on 1.4.2011 has been taken

by the assessee at Rs.5,87,561/-. The CIT(A) observed that the closing

balance as on 31.3.2011 has to be opening balance as on 1.4.2011 which

has not shown in the cash book of the assessee. Therefore, he held that

cash deposit of Rs.5,00,000/- on 31.5.2011 in ICICI Bank was unexplained

and confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

5.

Before me, ld A.R. reiterated the submissions made before the

CIT(A).

6.

On the other hand, ld D.R. supported the order of the lower

authorities.

3 ITA No. 67/ CTK/2017 Asse ssment Year : 20 12- 201 3 7. I find that the observation of the CIT(A) in his order that the closing

cash balance as per cash book for the financial year 2010-2011 was

Rs.43,202.80 whereas the assessee has shown opening cash balance as on

1.4.2011 in his cash book at Rs.5,87,561/-. The difference could not be

explained before the CIT(A). Therefore, he confirmed the addition of

Rs.5,00,000/- on account of deposit made in ICICI Bank by the assessee

on 31`.5.2011 as unexplained. Before me no positive material could be

brought on record to controvert the above findings of the CIT(A). Hence, I

confirm the order of the CIT(A) and dismiss the ground of appeal of the

assessee.

8.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 26/05/2017 in the presence of parties. Sd/- (N.S Saini) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 26/05/2017 B.K.Parida, SPS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : Meghraj Katela, Flat 2nd No.A/06, floor, Babylon Garden Apartment, 781, Jayadurga Nagar, Bhubaneswar. 2. The Respondent. ITO, Ward 3(3), Bhubaneswar. 3. The CIT(A)-2, Bhubaneswar 4. Pr.CIT-2, Bhubaneswar 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. //True Copy// BY ORDER, SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, Cuttack

4 ITA No. 67/ CTK/2017 Asse ssment Year : 20 12- 201 3

Date Initial 1. Draft dictated on 24/05/17 Sr.PS 2. Draft placed before author 24/05/17 (dictation Sr.PS pad has been enclosed along with original file) 3. Draft proposed & placed AM before the second member 4. Draft discussed/approved AM by Second Member. 5. Approved Draft comes to Sr.PS the Sr.PS/PS /PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS 7. File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS 8. Date on which file goes to the H.C. 9. Date on which file goes to the SPS 10. Date of dispatch of Order.

More judgments on Section 69

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →