Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR.
Before: DR. M. L. MEENA & SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
I.T.A. No. 30/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11
Gurdev Singh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, H. No. 12, Ward No.12, Dasuya. Mohalla Kainthan, VPO, Dasuya, Distt. Hoshiarpur. [PAN: -CKQPS9357C] (Respondent) (Appellant)
Appellant by None (Written Submission) Respondent by Sh. Rajiv Wadhera, Sr.DR.
Date of Hearing 26.07.2023 Date of Pronouncement 04.08.2023
ORDER Per: Anikesh Banerjee, JM: The instant appeal of the assessee was filed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-1, Jalandhar, (in brevity ‘the CIT (A)’) order passed u/s 250 (6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in brevity the Act) for
assessment year 2010-11. The impugned order was emanated from the order of
I.T.A. No. 30/Asr/2023 2 Assessment Year: 2010-11
the ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward Dasuya, (in brevity the ld. AO) order passed u/s 144/147 of the Act.
The appeal was filed with a delay of 1196 days. The assessee filed
condonation petition and explained that due to medical emergency, the delay
was occurred. The supporting Hospital discharge summary of the assesseeis
duly submitted with the condonation petition. The ld. DR had not made any
objection against the condonation of delay. Accordingly, the delay for 1196 days
is condoned.
The assessee has taken the following grounds:
“1. That the order passed by the Hon’ble CIT (A) dated 20.06.2019 is against the law and facts of the case.
That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon’ble CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in framing the impugned assessment order u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 and without complying with the mandatory condition u/s 147 as envisaged under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon’ble CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making an addition of Rs. 31,97,500/-, on account of cash deposits, without considering
I.T.A. No. 30/Asr/2023 3 Assessment Year: 2010-11
the submissions of assessee and without observing the principles of natural justice.
That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.”
When the appeal was called for hearing, none was present on behalf of
the assessee. On perusal of the record, we find that the assessee filed written
submission and prayed to accept the appeal on basis of the written submission.
We proceed to dispose of the appeal after hearing the ld. DR.
Brief facts as culled out from the records are that the assessee deposited
cash in the bank account amount to Rs.31,97,500/- for the impugned assessment
year. The assessment was completed u/s 144/147. So, the assessee was unable to explain the source of deposit before the ld. AO. The addition was confirmed the
total deposit of cash amount to Rs. 31,97,500/- and undisclosed interest amount
to Rs. 14,896/- and added back with total income. Aggrieved assessee, filed an
appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The issue was duly explained before the ld.
CIT(A). The assessee claimed that the sufficient amount of cash was withdrawn
from the bank account and also assessee received cash from the children
through money gram. But the ld. CIT(A) had not accepted the assessee’s plea.
I.T.A. No. 30/Asr/2023 4 Assessment Year: 2010-11
The ld. CIT(A) upheld the assessment order. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us.
The ld. AR filed a written submission which is kept in the record. The ld.
AR placed the submission alongwith bank account of the assessee, cash flow
and the receipt of the money gram which is enclosed in assessee’s paper book.
The assessee duly explained the source and sufficient cash was withdrawn
amount to Rs.30,26,000/- from the bank. The same explanation was filed before
the ld. CIT(A). The paragraph 5.1 page 8 of the appeal order is reproduced as
below:
“5.1 I have carefully considered the facts of the case and submissions of the appellant.During the appeal proceedings, the assessee did not file any explanation regarding deposits of Rs. 31,97,000/- in his saving bank account with State Bank of India, Talab Road, Dasuya, during the F.Y. 2009-10. Therefore, the assessing officer made an addition of Rs. 31,97,000/- in the case of the assessee.
During the appeal proceedings, a copy of bank statement of the assesee was filed and the cash deposits were explained as under:-
Cash flow as on 31.03.2010
Op. cash as on 01.04.2009 1,20,000/-
I.T.A. No. 30/Asr/2023 5 Assessment Year: 2010-11
Add: Receipts from money gram 3,00,000/-
Add: Withdrawal from bank 30,26,000/-
Total 34,46,000/-
Less: Cash deposited in bank 31,97,500/-
Less: Household expenses 1,50,000/-
Balance 98,500/-
It is observed the above cash flow filed by the assessee is not supported with any cogentevidence. No receipts of moneygramhas been filed. No date wise cash flow of withdrawals and deposits into the bank account has been filed. The assessee has failed to substantiate the cash deposits into his bank account. Therefore, the addition made by the AO on account of unexplained cash deposits is upheld u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act 1961. The order of the, assessing officer is modified accordingly.”
The ld. DR onlyrelied on the order of the revenue authorities.
We heard the rival submission and considered the documents available in
the record. The assessee placed the bank account, cash flow statement and
source of cash was duly explained. The document was duly submitted before the
ld. CIT(A). But in absence of cash flow the cash deposit in bank was remained
unexplained before the ld. CIT(A). The assessee had opening cash in hand Rs.
I.T.A. No. 30/Asr/2023 6 Assessment Year: 2010-11
1,20,000/-, received cash money gram amount to Rs. 3,00,00/- and withdrawn cash from bank amount to Rs.30,26,000/- which was explained before the revenue. The monthwise cash flow of the assessee is duly reproduced as below.
SUMMARY OF MONTH WISE CASH WITHDRAWALS & CASH AVAILABILITY DURING FY 2009-10: PARTICULARS WITHDRAWALS BALANCE 1,20,000/- Opening balance 1,20,000/- - April 1,20,000/- May 60,000/- 1,80,000/- June 1,16,798/- 2,96,798/- July 2,75,000/- 5,71,798/- August 5000/- 5,76,798/- September 7,40,000/- 13,16,798/- October 3,39,050/- 16,55,848/- 17,55,848/- November 1,00,000/- 22,22,848/- December 4,67,000/- January 10,18,465/- 32,41,313/- February 1,81,000/- 34,22,313/- 34,48,313/- March 26,000/-
Without considering the bank account of the assessee the entire cash deposit in the bank account was added back u/s 69A of the Act. On perusal of record by verifying the day-wise cash flow, the assessee had sufficient cash balance to deposit cash in bank account. The summary of cash flow was submitted by the
I.T.A. No. 30/Asr/2023 7 Assessment Year: 2010-11
assessee before the ld. CIT(A) but it was ignore4d. So, the addition of cash deposit amount to Rs. 31,97,500/- is quashed.
Considering the above discussion, the appeal of the assessee in Ground
no.1 & 4 are general in nature. The Ground no.3 is allowed. The Ground no.4 is
only remained for academic purpose.
In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No. 30/ASR/2023 is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 04.08.2023
Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. M. L. Meena) (ANIKESH BANERJEE) Accountant Member Judicial Member AKV
Copy of the order forwarded to:
(1)The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4) The CIT (Appeals) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By order