DEEPAK RAMCHAND RAHEJA,CHENNAI V. ITO, NCW-3(2), CHENNAI

ITA 1787/CHNY/2024

AI Insights

The case revolves around an appeal by Deepak Ramchand Raheja against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which confirmed the addition of \\u20b914,45,000 to his income for the assessment year 2017-18. The addition was initially made by the Assessing Officer, who alleged that the cash deposits in Raheja's bank accounts were unexplained. The primary contention was whether the assessee had adequately explained the sources of these deposits. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had mistakenly recorded the total cash deposit amount and corrected it to \\u20b916,50,000. However, the Tribunal upheld the addition of \\u20b911,50,000 after considering the assessee's failure to provide satisfactory evidence regarding the source of the cash deposits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 107443 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 14-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 25-06-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GOUTHAMI MANIVASAGAM
• Assessee Lawyers: M. KARUNAKARAN
• Section: 69A

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’बी’ Ɋायपीठ, चेɄई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI ŵी एस.एस. िवʷनेũ रिव, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी एस.आर. रगुनाथॎ, लेखा सद˟ क े समƗ Before Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1787/Chny/2024 िनधाŊरण वषŊ/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deepak Ramchand Raheja, A-11, Garden City Apartments, 318, Valluvarkottam High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [PAN: AAEPR5387D] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 3(2), Chennai. (अपीलाथŎ/Appellant) (ŮȑथŎ/Respondent) अपीलाथŎ की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri M. Karunakaran, Advocate ŮȑथŎ की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 14.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 23.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 27.05.2024 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. The assessee raised 9 grounds of appeal, amongst which, the only issue emanates for our consideration as to whether the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is justified in confirming the addition of ₹.14,45,000/-. I.T.A. No.1787/Chny/24 2 3. The ld. AR Shri M. Karunakaran, Advocate drew our attention to the details of cash deposit as recorded by the Assessing Officer in page 2 of the assessment order. He submits that the Assessing Officer made a clerical mistake in showing the total cash deposit at ₹.21 lakhs instead of ₹.16,50,000/- . We find that the Manager, Canara Bank certified that the assessee deposited ₹.12,00,000/- and ₹.50,000/- in the current account of the assessee. Therefore, we hold that the Assessing Officer mistakenly shown ₹.21,00,000/- instead of ₹.16,50,000/-. 4. It was explained before the Assessing Officer that the sources for such cash deposit in bank accounts are out of cash withdrawals and the Assessing Officer held that the cash withdrawals are only in new currency, but, not in SBN. Further, the Assessing Officer held that no cash balance has been shown in asset column in the return of income and accordingly, proceeded to add the said cash deposit on account of unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] by giving benefit of ₹.5.00 lakhs of earlier cash balance. The ld. CIT(A) also observed that the contention of the assessee is not acceptable in support of having cash balance in the absence of mentioning NIL balance in asset column. I.T.A. No.1787/Chny/24 3 5. Before us, the ld. AR submits that the assessee is a businessman having sufficient cash balance in his hand. The Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) proceeded to add the said amount without any basis and not considering the submissions of the assessee. He argued that the opening cash balance as on 01.04.2016 has been shown at ₹.17,39,357/-, but, no need to disclose the same in the return of income in view of the assessee having income of less than ₹.50.00 lakhs. 6. The ld. DR Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT vehemently contended that the assessee failed to show source of said cash deposit before the Assessing Officer as well as the ld. CIT(A). She vehemently argued that there was no evidence before the Tribunal showing said cash deposit except making the statement that the assessee has opening cash balance as on 01.04.2016 and not necessary to disclose in the return of income at asset column. The assessee did not bring out any evidence in this regard before the Tribunal. 7. Having considered the submissions of the ld. AR and the ld. DR, we hold that the cash deposit as shown in page 2 of the assessment I.T.A. No.1787/Chny/24 4 order is ₹.16,50,000/-, but, not ₹.21,00,000/-. The Assessing Officer has given cash benefit of ₹.5.00 lakhs on account of earlier cash balance and taking into same, the challenge regarding the addition before us is only ₹.11,50,000/- [₹.16,50,000-₹.5,00,000]. Admittedly, as contended by the ld. DR, there was no evidence showing in support of the claim of the assessee having cash balance of ₹.17,39,357/- as on 01.04.2016. Before us also, nothing was brought on record to show the same as available in the hands of the assessee as on 01.04.2016. The ld. AR pleaded that it is not necessary to disclose the same in the return of income as income of the assessee is below ₹.50.00 lakhs. On perusal of the assessment order, we note that the assessee declared total income of ₹.4,488/- in the return of income. The Assessing Officer doubted the cash deposit of ₹.16,50,000/- on account of assessee having a meagre income. We find no explanation was offered in respect of the said finding of the Assessing Officer before the ld. CIT(A) as well as before the Tribunal. Therefore, we find no force in the arguments of the ld. AR that the assessee has cash balance as on 01.04.2016 to an extent of ₹.17,39,357/-. In the absence of any evidence supporting the contention of the ld. AR as pleaded before us, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A). Thus, the addition of I.T.A. No.1787/Chny/24 5 ₹.11,50,000/- is confirmed and the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on 23rd October, 2024 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (S.R. RAGHUNATHA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 23.10.2024 Vm/- आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant, 2.ŮȑथŎ/ Respondent, 3. आयकर आयुƅ/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध/DR & 5. गाडŊ फाईल/GF. "