ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M.MURALIKRISHNAN, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2490/CHNY/2014Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 January 2015AY 2009-105 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the AO had not examined the assessee's books of accounts. The matter was remitted back to the AO to verify if the transactions were reflected in the books.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- under Section 68 for unexplained cash deposits. The assessee claimed these deposits were from a refund of an advance given for land purchase.

What were the issues?

Whether the cash deposits were sufficiently explained by the refund of an advance, and if the AO properly verified the assessee's books of accounts.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “ C” BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN & SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY

For Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
Hearing: 19.01.2015Pronounced: 19.01.2015

आदेश /O R D E R

PER B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

The Revenue has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 28.04.2014, passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IV, Chennai, relating to assessment year 2009-10. The Revenue is aggrieved by the decision of Ld. CIT(Appeals) in deleting the addition of ` 10,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961(in short 'the Act').

2.

We heard the parties and perused the record. During the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O. noticed that the assessee has deposited cash in various dates aggregating to `19,00,000/-. When the A.O. called for explanation, the assessee submitted explanation to the extent of `5,05,500/-. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee had failed to explain deposits to the extent of `10,00,000/- and assessed the same under Section 68 of the Act.

3.

In the appellate proceeding, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) noticed that the assessee had given an advance of `10,00,000/- for purchasing land in his native village and other locations in and around Chennai. It was further noticed by him that the said advance was received back and the same was utilized for making deposits of `5,00,000/- each on 10.04.2008 and 28.04.2008.

Hence, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) deleted the addition of `10,00,000/- with the following observation:-

“4.8. It is seen that the amount of ` 10 lakhs has been withdrawn on 6.9.2007 and stated to have been re-deposited on 10.4.2008 (` 5,00,000) and on 28.4.2008 (` 5,00,000) which was subsequently once again withdrawn on 13.10.2008 (` 5,00,000) and on 6.12.2008 (` 4,00,000) for the purchase of the property. The A.O. had not disputed the fact that appellant withdrew the money lying in his bank account in the previous year and as such the sum so credited in the books of the assessee were from the earlier period and not during the previous year in question. The A.O. appears also not to have verified the balance sheet and the capital account of the assessee so as to ascertain the exact amount of money lying in his account so as to be in a position to withdraw the sum of ` 10 lakhs stated to have been withdrawn on 6.9.2007. Neither had he in any manner tried to find out the personal expenditure or expenditure on account of any other account made by the appellant which would have given an indication that he had spent that amount prior to the date when he has stated to have re-deposited the same in his bank account. It is also a fact in the case of real estate, transactions may not materialize and advances are also returned in the regular course of such business and therefore to hold that he had not filed any evidence in support of cash credit and adding the same as income of the assessee appears to be unwarranted in the facts and circumstances of the instant case and therefore directed to be deleted.”

4.

At the time of hearing, a specific query was asked to the Ld. counsel as to whether the assessee is maintaining books of accounts and whether the above said payment of advance of `10,00,000/-, refund received and deposit made into bank account were reflected in the books of accounts or not. The Ld. counsel submitted that the assessee was maintaining books of accounts and all these transactions have been reflected therein. We notice that neither the A.O. nor the CIT(Appeals) has examined the books of accounts. There should not be any doubt that impugned addition is not called for if the above said transactions have been duly

4 recorded in the books of accounts, since the it represents only refund of advance given on an earlier occasion. Since the Assessing Officer has not examined the books of accounts, the Bench expressed the view that the same requires verification at the end of Assessing Officer. Both the parties agreed to the said view. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and remit this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for the limited purpose of verifying as to whether these transactions are reflected in the books of accounts or not. If these transactions are reflected in the books of accounts, then the Assessing Officer is directed to delete the addition of ` 10,00,000/- referred above.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on the 19th day of January, 2015 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →