RAJENDRA PRABHU TAMBE,PUNE vs. ITO 14(4), PUNE, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 570/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2024AY 2014-15Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal confirmed the addition of Rs. 7 lakhs, reducing the original addition of Rs. 12,00,468/-. This decision was made with the rider that it should not be treated as a precedent.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2014-15 challenged an addition of Rs. 12,00,468/- made under Section 68 as unexplained cash credit. The assessee did not appear before the tribunal, and the Revenue's representative did not dispute the possibility of past savings.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the cash deposits made by the assessee were sufficiently explained to avoid an addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 23.04.2024Pronounced: 14.05.2024

Date of Hearing : 23.04.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 14.05.2024 ORDER

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2014-15, arises against the Addl/JCIT(A), Udaipur, Udaipur’s Din and Order No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2023-24/1060138088(1), dated 25.01.2024, in proceedings u/s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

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

2.

The assessee’s sole substantive grievance raised in the instant appeal challenges correctness of both the learned lower authorities action making sec.68 unexplained cash credit addition(s) of Rs.12,00,468/- i.e., total cash deposits of 2 ITA.No.570/PUN./2024 Rs.23,41,350/- reduced by the declared business receipts of Rs.11,40,882/-; respectively.

3.

Learned DR failed to dispute that the possibility of the assessee’s past savings and accumulations keeping in mind his socio-economic status could not be altogether ruled out. The fact also remains that the assessee has not discharged his onus of pleading and proving the source of the impugned cash deposits.

4.

Faced with this situation, I deem it appropriate to confirm the impugned addition of Rs.12,00,468/- only to Rs.7 lakhs with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent in other case(s). The assessee gets relief of Rs.5,00,468/- in otherwords. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. Ordered accordingly.

5.

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

Order pronounced in the open Court on 14.05.2024.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →