MUKESH CHHAGANLAL PATEL,MARGAO vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MARGAO

PDF · subscribers
ITA 48/PAN/2021Status: DisposedITAT Panaji24 November 2022AY 2017-184 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that past savings and cash in hand were not adequately considered. Consequently, the addition was restricted to Rs. 80,000, with a note that this decision should not be treated as a precedent.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against an order that sustained an addition of Rs. 2,40,000 as unexplained income. This addition was related to cash deposits made by the assessee's spouse from her savings.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of cash deposits as unexplained income was justified without considering the assessee's spouse's past savings and cash in hand. The applicability of Section 115BBE to deposits made before its amendment was also an issue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 119,Section 115BBE,Section 69C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PANAJI ‘SMC’ BENCH : PANAJI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 23.11.2022Pronounced: 25.11.2022

Shri Mukesh Chhaganlal The Income Tax Officer, Patel, D’mello Appts Pajifond, Margao Salcete, vs. Margao. Goa – 403 601 PAN AAQPP5229A Goa – 403 601 (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri S.J. Kamat For Revenue : Shri N. Shrikant Date of Hearing : 23.11.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 25.11.2022 ORDER

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre Delhi’s order dated 12.10.2021, in DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021- 22/1036316616, in proceedings u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act").

2.

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

3.

The assessee pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal :

1.

“The learned Commissioner of Appeals has erred in not following the binding judgment of the Honourable Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in respect of cash deposited upto 2 ITA.No.48/PAN/2021 Rs.2,50,000/- in the form of SBN by a woman out of her savings over the years.

2. The Learned Commissioner of Appeals has erred in not following the statement given by the Prime Minister, press statement and the standard operating procedure issued by the CBDT, as instructions under section 119 in respect of cash deposited upto Rs.2,50,000/-in the form of SBN by a woman out of her savings over the years.

3. The Learned Commissioner of Appeals has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.2,40,000/¬being deposit of SBN out of the savings of the assessee's spouse over the years, as unexplained income.

4. The Learned Commissioner of Appeals has erred in sustaining the charge of Tax as per the Section 115BBE as amended by the Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 2016 which became law on 15" December 2016, on income Rs.3,67,500/- taxed u/s 69C in respect of deposits made prior to 15" December 2016.

5. Without prejudice to the above, The Learned Commissioner of Appeals has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.2,40,000/- in the hands of the Appellant in spite of the fact that the said addition ought to have been made in the hands of The Appellant's spouse, or in the worst scenario only 50% of the said amount, if treated as income, ought to have been sustained in the hands of the Appellant.

3 ITA.No.48/PAN/2021 6. The Appellant craves leave to add to, delete from or to modify the above grounds at the time of hearing.”

4.

After vehemently arguing in favour of the assessee’s above extracted pleadings for sometime, learned counsel submitted that both the lower authorities have not given credit of the cash in hand in light of his social economic status and, therefore, the addition herein of Rs.2,40,000/- deserves to be deleted in entirety.

5.

The Revenue has strongly supported the impugned addition.

6.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the foregoing rival stands and find part merit in assessee’s argument. Learned DR could hardly dispute that neither the Assessing officer nor the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion throws light on the assessee’s past savings vis-à-vis the cash in hand in the relevant previous year. The assessee has equally failed in not filing on record all the relevant details to this effect. Faced with the situation, I deem it appropriate to restrict the impugned addition total lumpsum amount of Rs.80,000/- with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.

7.

No other ground has been raised or pressed during the course of hearing.

8.

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

4 ITA.No.48/PAN/2021 Order pronounced in the open court on 25.11.2022.

More judgments on Section 119

All 707 judgments and leading authorities on Section 119 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →