MOHD FAROOQUE RAFIQUE BAGBAN,NANDURBAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, DHULE, DHULE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 485/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 May 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found the distinction made by the AO without justification and, in the interest of justice, reduced the addition to Rs. 2,00,000. The assessee received relief of Rs. 2,04,500.

What were the facts?

The assessee deposited demonetized currency in his bank account. The Assessing Officer treated cash deposits made in December 2016 as unexplained, amounting to Rs. 4,04,500, while accepting deposits up to November 30, 2016.

What were the issues?

Whether the entire cash deposit made in December 2016, representing demonetized currency, could be treated as unexplained cash credit without considering the assessee's socio-economic status.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 06.05.2024Pronounced: 10.05.2024

“NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1054774826(1), dated 01.08.2023, in proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

It emerges during the course of hearing that the assessee’s sole substantive ground canvassed in the instant appeal challenges correctness of both the learned lower authorities action making sec.68 r.w.s.115BBE unexplained cash credit(s) addition of Rs.4,04,500/- representing demonetized currency deposited in his bank account(s) in the months of November and December, 2016. It

2 ITA.No.485/PUN./2024 transpires from the Assessing Officer’s detailed discussion in para-5 page-4 that all what he has done is to accept the assessee’s cash deposits up-to 30th November, 2016 as duly explained and balance of the impugned sum coming to Rs.4,04,500/- in December, 2016 as unexplained cash credit(s). The same appears to be without any justification since he has not even considered the assessee’s socio economic status whilst treating 30th November, 2016 as the benchmark date in foregoing terms. The fact also remains that the assessee could not explain the source of the impugned cash deposits made in the month of December, 2016. Faced with this situation and in the larger interest of justice; it is deemed appropriate that a lump sum addition of Rs.2 lakhs only out of that in question of Rs.4,04,500/- (supra) would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent in any other case. The assessee gets relief of Rs.2,04,500/- in otherwords.

Necessary computation shall follow as per law. Ordered accordingly.

4.

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open Court on 10.05.2024.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →