CHANDANA BANERJEE,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O WD - 11(1),KOL, KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the bank account had both cash withdrawals and deposits. It held that the peak credit of cash deposits should be assessed as income, not the entire deposit. The matter was restored to the AO for assessment based on peak computation.
What were the facts?
The assessee deposited Rs. 30.77 lacs in cash into her savings bank account. The Assessing Officer treated this as suppressed income as the source could not be explained. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition.
What were the issues?
Whether the entire cash deposit into a bank account, which also had withdrawals, should be treated as unexplained income, or if the peak credit should be considered.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH: KOLKATA
Before: Shri Mahavir Singh, JM & Shri Waseem Ahmed, AM]
Per Shri Mahavir Singh, JM:
This appeal by assessee is arising out of order of CIT(A)-XII, Kolkata vide Appeal No. 190/XII/11(1)/11-12 dated 15.03.2013. Assessment was framed by ITO, Wd-11(1), Kolkata u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for Assessment Year 2009-10 vide his order dated 29.09.2011.
The only issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) in treating the cash deposit into savings bank account with Axis Bank as suppressed income. For this assessee has raised following relevant two grounds: “2. For that in the facts and circumstances of the case, that cash deposited into Savings Bank Account with Axis Bank to the tune of Rs.30,77,000/- has been treated as suppressed income and added to total income.
For that in the facts and circumstances of the case, that these cash deposits of Rs.30,77,000/- were made out of cash withdrawn Rs.16,50,000/- on various dates from the same bank account and also out of cash withdrawn from ICICI Bank of Rs.23,50,000/- on various dates.” 3. We have heard rival submissions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. Brief facts are that the assessee is having income from salary, business, house property and other sources. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noted that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs.30.77 lacs in her savings bank account maintained with Axis Bank, Rash Behari Avenue Branch but could not explain the source of deposit. Hence, the AO treated the entire cash deposit as unexplained cash credits u/s. 68 of the Act and added to the returned income of the assessee amounting to Rs.30.77 lacs. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A), who also confirmed the action of AO as the assessee could not prove that receipts from business transaction as she has failed to file any reconciliation or evidence qua that. Aggrieved, now assessee is in second appeal before Tribunal. 4. Before us, at the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted a peak statement computed by assessee and stated that assessee’s income should be estimated after verifying the peak credit and entire cash deposit should not be added. We find from the statement of Axis Bank that there are cash withdrawals as well as cash deposits. It is a fact that cash withdrawals and cash deposits should be considered and peak of the same should be assessed as income. This view of ours is taken in the case of ITO vs. Shri Piyush Poddar in for AY 2006- 07 dated 07.09.2015. In term of the above, we restore the matter back to the file of AO after setting aside the orders of the lower authorities for framing assessment on the basis of peak computation of cash credit entries in Axis Bank account. Accordingly, we remit the issue back to the file of AO for fresh adjudication in terms of above. Appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 5. In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court. Sd/- Sd/- (Waseem Ahmed) (Mahavir Singh) Accountant Member Judicial Member
Dated : 9th March, 2016
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dezinetree Projects PVT. LTD. vs. Spokes Digital Inc And AnrDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Jaydeep Jayantilal Hudaka vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 28 Oct 2026
- Commissioner/Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax vs. M/S INDIA Agro Exports Private LimitedKarnataka · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026