BHUSAWAL CABLE NETWORK PVT LTD,JALGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2 (1), JALGAON, JALGAON

PDF · subscribers
ITA 238/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 May 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal by reducing the addition for unexplained cash deposits to Rs. 3.5 lakhs. The issue of depreciation on set-top boxes was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2017-18 arose from an ex-parte order. The main grounds concerned an addition of Rs. 6,28,500/- under Section 69A for unexplained cash deposits and disallowance of depreciation on set-top boxes.

What were the issues?

Whether the cash deposits were sufficiently explained and the correctness of depreciation claim on set-top boxes.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 19.03.2024Pronounced: 17.05.2024

Date of Hearing : 19.03.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 17.05.2024 ORDER

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/ 2023-24/1057773548(1), dated 07.11.2023, in proceedings u/s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

2.

The assessee pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal :

1.

“The Ld. AO erred in making (&. CIT (A) erred in confirming) addition of Rs.6,28,500/- u/s 69A of the IT

Act.

2 ITA.No.238/PUN./2024

1.1. The Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the source of cash deposit was fully explained. 2. The Ld. AO erred in disallowing (& CIT (A) erred in confirming) claim of deprecation on set-top box of Rs.12,11,738/-.

3. The appellant craves its right to add to or alter the Grounds of Appeal at any time before or during the course

of hearing of the case.”

3.

Learned DR vehemently argued during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have rightly made the impugned sec.69A addition of Rs.6,28,500/- representing the assessee’s cash deposits of Rs.4,12,500/- in HDFC and Rs.2,16,000/- in it’s Central Bank of India account(s), respectively. This case has been emanated in light of the impugned learned lower authorities discussion that the assessee could not prove source of the said cash deposits so as to get out of the rigor of the provisions of the Act and therefore, the learned lower authorities have rightly treated the same as unexplained cash.

4.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s pleadings and Revenue’s foregoing stand. It is an admitted fact that the assessee is a company engaged in providing cable set top services. The same has remained

3 ITA.No.238/PUN./2024 undisputed at the Revenue’s behest as well. It is observed in these peculiar facts that possibility of assessee having derived cash receipts in it’s regular business activity(ies); although not substantiated by filing all relevant details, could not altogether ruled-out. Faced with this situation, I deem it appropriate in larger interest of justice that a lump sum addition of Rs.3.5 lakhs only out of that in question of Rs.6,28,500/- would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be taken as a precedent in any other case(s). The assessee gets relief of Rs.2,78,500/-. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.

Ordered accordingly.

5.

Now comes the latter issue of appreciation disallowance on set-top boxes of Rs.12,11,738/- made by both the learned lower authorities respective orders.

6.

Learned DR could hardly dispute that the same requires afresh factual verification by the Assessing Officer regarding the cost of acquisition vis-à-vis written down value [“WDV”] thereof going by assessee’s depreciation schedule. I thus deem it as a fit case to restore the matter back to the learned Assessing Officer for his afresh appropriate adjudication preferably within three effective opportunities of hearing subject to the rider that it is the assessee’s sole risk and responsibility to prove the case in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

4 ITA.No.238/PUN./2024

7.

Delay of 23 days in filing the instant appeal is condoned as per assessee’s solemn averments in light of Collector, Land Acquisition vs., MST Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC) having settled the law long back that all such technical aspects must make a way for the cause of substantial justice.

8.

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 17.05.2024.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →