No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K.
Per GEORGE GEORGE K.,JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal, at the instance of the assessee, is directed against the order of
the CIT(A), Trivandrum dated 08-02-2017. The relevant assessment year is
2009-10.
The solitary issue that arises for my consideration is whether the CIT(A) is
justified in confirming the assessment order with regard to the addition made
under section 69A of the I.T. Act.
2 I.T.A. No.130/Coch/2017
The brief facts of the case are as follows:
The assessee is an individual who is engaged in the business of rubber
manufacturing. For the assessment year 2009-10, the return of income was filed
on 30/11/2009, declaring loss of Rs.4,70,270/- and net agricultural income of
Rs.3,85,000/-. The assessment was taken up for scrutiny by issuance of notice
u/s. 143(2) of the Act. In the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed
that the assessee had made cash deposits on various dates in the Axis Bank
account during the year under consideration, amounting to Rs.15,81,000/-. The
assessee was asked to explain the source of the cash deposits amounting to
Rs.15,81,000/-. It was submitted by the Authorized Representative of the
assessee that these deposits were mostly made from the withdrawals of the OD
A/c maintained by the assessee with Indian Overseas Bank (IOB) and also
margin money loan received from the Government. The Assessing Officer, after
examining the explanation of assessee, the books of account etc., held that the
withdrawals made from IOB were for other purposes and cannot be source for
cash deposits made in Axis Bank. The Assessing Officer was of the view that
except for a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- deposited with Axis Bank on 14/07/2008, there
is no co-relation with the withdrawals made from Indian Overseas Bank.
Therefore, the Assessing Officer, after giving credit of Rs.1,25,000/-, the balance
cash deposits amounting to Rs.14,56,000/- ( i.e., 15,81,000-1,25,000/-) was
treated as income assessable u/s. 69A of the I.T. Act.
3 I.T.A. No.130/Coch/2017
Aggrieved by the order of the assessment, the assessee preferred an appeal
before the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) confirmed the order of the
Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal to
the Tribunal. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has filed a detailed paper book
comprising of 36 pages, inter alia, enclosing I.T. return copies for AY 2009-10
and 2010-11, confirmation letter from M/s. A.N. Rubbers, for sale of latex and
scrap, Bank statement of Axis Bank, income and expenditure statement of rubber
estate for the assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, the margin money
loan taken proceeding, Bank statement of the IOB for the period 01/01/2007 to
31/12/2015 etc. It was submitted that the assessee is having rubber estate and
had disclosed net agricultural income for the relevant assessment year
amounting to Rs.3,85,000/- which has not been disputed by the Assessing
Officer. Even in the earlier assessment years and in the subsequent assessment
years, the assessee had disclosed agricultural income and the finding of the
CIT(A) that no agricultural income was disclosed by the assessee in the past
years and subsequent years is false. To prove this, the Ld. Counsel for the
assessee has taken me through income and expenditure statement of the rubber
estate and the returns of income filed by assessee for the subsequent years to
show that agricultural income was disclosed in the subsequent AY’s. With regard
to the withdrawals from the Indian Overseas Bank and its redeposits with the
4 I.T.A. No.130/Coch/2017
Axis Bank, the assessee submitted that each of the cash deposits in the Axis
Bank could be co-related with the withdrawals from the Indian Overseas Bank
and other source of income available with assessee.. It was further submitted
that the assessee had received Rs.2,50,000/- from District Industries Centre,
Trivandrum as margin loan money for setting up an industry and this amount
was also withdrawn and deposited in the Axis Bank account of the assessee. It
was submitted that the addition made u/s. 69A of the I.T. Act is not warranted
and the same is to be deleted.
The ld. DR on the other hand submitted that for the cash deposits
amounting to Rs.14,56,000/-, the assessee was not able to prove the source
and the Assessing Officer has rightly added the same u/s. 69A of the Act.
I have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The
assessee had made cash deposits in Axis Bank aggregating to Rs.15,81,000/-.
The amount and the date on which the cash deposits were made and the source
for same, as claimed by the assessee are detailed below:
Date Amount Source of funds 03.04.2008 265000 Deposit out of cash on hand 09.04.2008 15000 Agricultural income 14.07.2008 125000 Deposit out of cash on hand 18.10.2008 101000 Agricultural income 06.11.2008 100000 Agricultural income 09.12.2008 100000 Agricultural income 05.01.2009 60000 Deposit out of cash on hand
5 I.T.A. No.130/Coch/2017
08.01.2009 230000 Margin money loan 09.02.2009 275000 Deposit out of cash on hand 26.02.2009 50000 Deposit out of cash on hand 26.02.2009 30000 Deposit out of cash on hand 04.03.2009 50000 Deposit out of cash on hand 16.03.2009 35000 Deposit out of cash on hand 25.03.2009 135000 Agricultural income 28.03.2009 10000 Deposit out of cash on hand Total 15,81,000
7.1 Out of the total deposits of Rs.15,81,000/-, the Assessing Officer had given
credit of Rs.1,25,000/- deposited on 14/07/2008 and balance Rs.14,56,000/- was
brought to tax u/s. 69A of the Act. Out of the above deposits made, the
assessee had claimed the following cash deposits were out of agricultural
income, which are detailed below:
Date Amount Source of funds 09.04.2008 15000 Agricultural income 18.10.2008 101000 Agricultural income 06.11.2008 100000 Agricultural income 09.12.2008 100000 Agricultural income 25.03.2009 135000 Agricultural income Total 4,51,000
7.2 The assessee had furnished income and expenditure statement of the
Rubber Estate owned by him for the current year as well as for the prior and
subsequent years. For the relevant assessment year, the assessee had also
furnished a confirmation letter from A.N. Rubbers who had purchased rubber
latex and scrap from the assessee. The confirmation letter is place at page 11 of
the paper book which reads as follows:
6 I.T.A. No.130/Coch/2017
“TO WHOMSOEVER IT MAY CONCERN
This is to confirm that we have made the following payments to Mr. Dilip George Varghese, Thalakkotte, Kuravankonam, Trivandrum-695 003 against purchase of ammoniated rubber latex and scrap rubber purchased from him during the year ended 31-03-2009:-
Sl. No. Date Amount 1. 8-Apr-2008 15,000 2. 4-Oct-2008 48,000 3. 17-Oct-2008 53,800 4. 28-Oct-2008 58,000 5. 5-Nov-2008 42,650 6. 26-Nov-2008 47,000 7. 8-Dec-2008 56,000 8. 15-Jan-2009 11,000 9. 2-Feb-2009 9,000 10. 3-Mar-2009 63,000 11. 12-Mar-2009 48,000 12. 23-Mar-2009 26,605 Total 4,78,055
For A.N. Rubbers sd/- Authorized Signatory
7.3 The above confirmation letter was rejected by the CIT(A) only for the
reason that the assessee was not disclosing any agricultural income in the past
as well as in the subsequent assessment years. This conclusion of the CIT(A) is
wrong. In the current year, the assessee had disclosed net agricultural income of
Rs.3,85,000/- . Even in the subsequent assessment year, a perusal of the return
of income shows that the assessee had declared net agricultural income of
7 I.T.A. No.130/Coch/2017
Rs.3,70,000/-. The payments made by M/s. A.N. Rubbers aggregating to
Rs.4,78,055/- match with the deposits made by the assessee in the Axis Bank.
Since the assessee had disclosed net agricultural income of Rs.3,85,000/- in the
current AY which has not been disputed by the Assessing Officer, I have no
hesitation to hold that the claim of the assessee that the deposits made on
09/04/2008, 18/10/2008, 06/11/2008, 09/12/2008 and 25/03/2009 amounting to
Rs.15,000/-, Rs.1,01,000/-, 1,00,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.1,35,000/-
respectively has been properly explained. Hence I delete the addition made
amounting to Rs.4,51,000/-. It is ordered accordingly.
7.4 As for the balance Rs.10,05,000/- added u/s. 69A, it is claimed that the
source of funds are deposits made out of withdrawals from the assessee’s OD
account and the margin loan money received from District Industries Centre,
Trivandrum. In the interest of justice and equity, I am of the view that one
more opportunity needs to be granted to the assessee to explain the source of
cash deposits with Axis Bank. If the assessee is in a position to co-relate the
cash withdrawals and deposits within a reasonable time in the Axis Bank
account, credit for the same shall be given. With these directions, I restore the
issue of addition of Rs.10,05,000/- to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing
Officer shall dispose of the matter after affording a reasonable opportunity of
hearing to the assessee. The assessee shall produce necessary evidence and
8 I.T.A. No.130/Coch/2017
shall co-operate with the Assessing Officer for expeditious disposal of the case. It
is ordered accordingly.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical
purposes. Pronounced in the open court on 26th-04-2017.
sd/- (GEORGE GEORGE K.) JUDICIAL MEMBER
Place: Kochi Dated: 26th April, 2017 GJ Copy to: 1. Dilip George Varghese, Thalakotte, Kuravankonam, Trivandrum-695 003. 2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Trivandrum 3. The Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals), Trivandrum. 4. The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax,Trivandrum. 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., Cochin Bench, Cochin. 6. Guard File. By Order
(ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) I.T.A.T., Cochin