Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Before: SHRI G.D. AGRAWALG.D. AGRAWAL & AND BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWALG.D. AGRAWAL & AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH SHRI KULDIP SINGHSHRI KULDIP SINGH SHRI KULDIP SINGH
PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VP PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VP :- PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VP PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VP This appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2007-08 is directed against the order of learned CIT(A)-XVIII, New Delhi dated 25th June, 2012.
2. The assessee has raised various grounds of appeal. However, they are all against the addition of `13,63,000/- sustained by learned CIT(A) on account of unexplained cash deposit in the bank account.
3. At the time of hearing before us, it is submitted by the learned counsel that during the accounting year relevant to assessment year under consideration, the assessee has sold its farm land/property against which the cash was received which was subsequently deposited in the bank account. This explanation was given to the 2 ITA-4751/D/2012 Assessing Officer also. However, he did not accept the same and made the addition of `16,08,600/- for unexplained cash deposit in the bank account. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee explained that actual deposit in the bank account is not `16,08,600/- but only `13,63,600/- because two entries of cash deposits were considered twice by the Assessing Officer. It was again explained that the actual cash deposit of `13,63,600/- was out of sale proceeds of the land of the assessee. The CIT(A) called for the remand report from the Assessing Officer and in the remand report, the Assessing Officer accepted the assessee’s submission on both the grounds. Copy of the remand report is placed at page 4 of the assessee’s paper book. However, learned CIT(A) accepted the remand report only partially, i.e., with regard to duplicacy in respect of two entries totalling to `2,45,000/-. He stated that there is no unexplained cash deposit. The entire cash deposit is out of sale proceeds of the land and the Assessing Officer himself has accepted the same in the remand report. Therefore, the addition sustained by the learned CIT(A) should be deleted.
4. Learned DR, on the other hand, relied upon the order of the CIT(A) and stated that learned CIT(A) has already considered the remand report and has sustained the addition after duly considering the remand report. Therefore, his order should be sustained.
We have carefully considered the arguments of both the sides and have perused the material placed before us. In the remand report dated 7th May, 2012, the Assessing Officer stated as under:-
“Kindly refer to your letter number 03 dated 12-04-2012 on the above mentioned subject.
In this connection it is submitted as under:-
3 ITA-4751/D/2012
Regarding the addition of Rs.16,08,600/- it is to state that there was a duplicacy in entries of Rs.2,45,000/- (Rs.1,00,000 + Rs.1,45,000) which were the part of entry of Rs.13,63,600/- reflected in the AIR information. Hence the same may be considered. Regarding, the entry of Rs.16,63,600/- the cash deposit was made out of Sale of Land which is acceptable on merits.
If the above additions are deleted, then the Capital Gain on account of Sale arisen during the F.Y. 2006-07 may be considered while allowing the relief to the assessee.
In view of the above facts of the case, the ld.CIT(A) is requested to pass the order on merits of the case.”
From the above, it is evident that the Assessing Officer accepted that there is a duplicacy in the entries amounting to `2,45,000/- (`1,00,000 + `1,45,000). This part of the remand report has been accepted by the CIT(A). So far as the deposit of `13,63,600/- is concerned, the Assessing Officer observed “Regarding the entry of Rs.16,63,600/- (correct figure Rs.13,63,600/-) the cash deposit was made out of sale of land which is acceptable on merits.” Thus, when the Assessing Officer himself has stated that the cash deposit was made out of sale of land which is acceptable on merits, in our opinion, learned CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the addition of `13,63,600/- considering the same to be unexplained cash deposit. In view of the above, we delete the addition of `13,63,600/-.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Decision pronounced in the open Court on 21.01.2016.