Luzito Sebastiao Rodrigues, Salcete V. ITO, Int. Txn. Ward`, Panaji

ITA 12/PAN/2022

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Shri Luzito Sebastiao Rodrigues against the order of the CIT(A)-12, Bengaluru, which upheld the addition of Rs.5,38,000 as unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and its taxation at a rate of 60% under section 115BBE. The assessee argued that the cash deposits were from his overseas employment earnings, which the lower authorities did not adequately consider. The Tribunal found that while the assessee had substantial cash withdrawals and did not provide detailed household expenditure records, a partial relief in the addition amount was justified.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 136991 (ITAT-PANAJI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-01-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowedPartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 17-01-2023
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 05-04-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 271(1)(c); 143(3); 69A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI ‘SMC’ BENCH : PANAJI (THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING) BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.No.12/PAN/2022 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Shri Luzito Sebastiao Rodrigues, H.No.72B, Xamodhi, Dramapur Salcete, South Goa, Goa – 403 725 PAN AFFPR0546C vs., The Income Tax Officer, International Tax Ward, Panaji. Goa – 403 001. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Dharan Gandhi For Revenue : Shri N. Shrikant Date of Hearing : 30.01.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 30.01.2023 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017- 18, arises against the CIT(A)-12, Bengaluru’s order dated 10.02.2022, passed in case ITA.No.10154/CIT(A)-12/2019-20, in proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. The assessee pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal : 1. “The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Ld. AO in adding cash deposit of Rs.5,38,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (The Act'). The 2 ITA.No.12/PAN/2022 reasons given in this regard are patently erroneous and unjustified. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Ld. AO in taxing such cash deposit of Rs.5,38,000/- u/s 115BBE of the Act at the rate of 60%. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the levy of interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not setting aside the action of the Ld. AO in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, to amend, alter/delete and/or modify the above grounds of appeal on or before the final hearing.” 3. It is thus clear that the assessee’s sole substantive ground pleaded in the instant appeal seeks to reverse both the lower authorities action treating the cash deposits of Rs.5.38 lakhs during demonetization period as unexplained u/s.69A of the Act. A perusal of the case file, and more particularly, the CIT(A)'s detailed discussion in para-9 page-8 suggests that he has nowhere doubted the “wherewithal” of the assessee having earned the sum in issue from an overseas employment on a monthly salary of about $5000. 3.1. It is further evident from the Assessing Officer’s detailed discussion at page-4 para-5, that he had only given a 3 ITA.No.12/PAN/2022 credit of Rs.10,01,830/- involving assessee’s son-in-law so far as the former’s total cash deposits of Rs.15,39,830/- are concerned. 4. Ld. Departmental Representative could hardly dispute that both the lower authorities have nowhere granted credit of assessee’s cash withdrawals almost exceeding Rs.12 lakhs right from 01.04.2015 till demonetization. The fact also remains that assessee has also not filed all the relevant details of his house hold expenditure vis-à-vis foregoing withdrawals so as to attribute source of these cash deposits. Faced with the situation, I deem it appropriate that a lump sum addition of Rs.2,50,000/- out of that in issue of Rs.5.38 lakhs would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. 5. No other ground has been argued or pressed during the course of hearing. 6. This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open court on 30.01.2023. Sd/- [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 30 th January, 2023 VBP/- 4 ITA.No.12/PAN/2022 Copy to 1. The appellant 2. The respondent 3. The Ld. CIT(A) concerned. 4. The CIT concerned 5. D.R. ITAT, Panaji ‘SMC’ Bench, Panaji 6. Guard File. //By Order// Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Pune Benches, Pune.