Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY & SHRI. G. PAVAN KUMAR
आदेश / O R D E R PER G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-5, Chennai in dt 30.01.2016 for the assessment year 2008-2009
ITA No.669/Mds/2016. :- 2 -: passed u/s.143(3) and 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’).
The assessee has raised the following ground:-
‘’1.4 The ld.CIT(A)-5, Chennai erred in adding the cash deposits of �14,50,025/- in M/s. IDBI Bank, stated in AIR information without making any further enquiries as to whether the said cash deposits represents the income of the appellant’’.
The Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is a Chartered Accountant and filed return of income on 31.10.2008 with total income of �15,03,975/- and return was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act and subsequently, under scrutiny norms notice u/s.143(2) of the Act was issued. In compliance to notice, the ld. Authorised Representative of the assessee appeared from time to time and furnished information and written submissions. The ld. Assessing Officer found as per AIR information the assessee has deposited an aggregate cash deposits of �14,50,025/- in M/s. IDBI Bank Ltd and called for clarifications and the assessee furnished bank statements and cash book. The ld. Assessing Officer verified and test checked the books of account but could not tally the details submitted by the assessee with AIR information and made an addition of �14,50,025/- and assessed total income of �29,54,000/- by order u/s.143(3) of the Act dated 21.12.2010. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
ITA No.669/Mds/2016. :- 3 -:
In the appellate proceedings, the ld. Authorised Representative of assessee reiterated the submissions of assessment proceedings and argued the grounds and explained that the addition cannot be sustained as assessee is having adequate sources and the ld. Assessing Officer has not looked into Books of Account and bank statements and relied on sampling test check. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on perusal of the grounds and findings of the ld. Assessing Officer called for the explanations and ld. Authorised Representative in the appellate proceeding explained that assessee has sold the property on 06.09.2007 and the cash was deposited in saving account of IDBI Bank . The ld. Authorised Representative on query of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) explained that by the time explanations are submitted the assessment was completed. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) considered written submissions, materials filed on record and cash deposited in IDBI bank and compared deposits for the period from 3.4.2007 to 31.1.2008. On comparison with the receipts of sale consideration of property on 21.09.2007 �7,21,000/- and 06.10.2007 �7,31,500/-. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) found the difference in dates of cash deposits and receipts of sale and unilateral concluded that sale proceeds are not source to the cash deposits in bank and the assessee has failed to identity the sources and upheld the order
ITA No.669/Mds/2016. :- 4 -: of the ld. Assessing Officer. Aggrieved by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) order, the assessee assailed an appeal before Tribunal.
The ld. Authorised Representative reiterated the submissions of assessment proceedings and appellate proceedings and explained that assessee has sold the property and deposited the cash in IDBI Bank and produced bank statement, cash book to support the source of cash deposits. But the ld. Assessing Officer has only test checked and not considered other bank statements. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has relied on the dates of sale receipt compared with the aggregate deposits of bank account from 03.04.2007 to 31.1.2008 and came to a conclusion that sale receipt source is not a correct source and erred in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer. The ld. Authorised Representative substantiated his argument by filing cash inflow statement of deposits in the IDBI Bank, copy of ledger account and other bank account statement of AP Mahesh Bank Co-op Bank, IOB and IDBI Bank.
Further demonstrated that the assessee made withdrawals from other bank accounts and deposits in IDBI Bank are supported with cash drawals and loans mentioned in statement of cash inflows for deposits in IDBI bank from 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2008 and prayed for allowing the appeal.
ITA No.669/Mds/2016. :- 5 -:
Contra, the ld. Departmental Representative relied on the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and objected to filing of fresh evidence of bank account statements and cash inflow statement filed before the Tribunal and objected seriously and prayed for dismissing the appeal.
We heard the rival submissions, perused the material on record.
The crux of the issue emphasized by the ld. Authorised Representative that assessee is having adequate sources to establish the deposits in IDBI bank and the ld. Assessing Officer and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has not considered the assessee’s submissions and came to a conclusion that sources are inadequate and could not be sustained. The ld. Authorised Representative filed statement of cash inflow for deposits made in IDBI Bank explaining support for deposits with self withdrawals from bank accounts and sale consideration and explained the withdrawals of the bank account. The ld. Departmental Representative objected to the filing of evidence as Assessing Officer was not provided opportunity to verify the claim of the assessee. We considering the apparent facts, cash inflow statement and bank statements filed before us are of the opinion that genuineness of the transaction of bank withdrawals and deposits have to be verified and the ld. Assessing Officer was not provided opportunity in the assessment proceedings to verify and examine the ITA No.669/Mds/2016. :- 6 -: genuineness of claim and provisions of Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules have to be complied. So, we are of the opinion that matter has to be remitted to the Assessing Officer to verify the genuineness of the claim and we set aside the order of ld.CIT(A) and remit the entire disputed issue to the file of Assessing Officer to consider afresh and the assessee should be provided adequate opportunity before passing the order. The ground appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee in is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced on Tuesday, the 31st day of May, 2016 at Chennai.