Anjali Dilip Nahar, Jalna V. Pr Commissioner of Income-Tax -1, Nashik

ITA 146/PUN/2021

AI Insights

The case revolves around an appeal by Anjali Dilip Nahar against the order of the Pr.CIT, Nashik-1, which was passed under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Pr.CIT had set aside the original assessment order, directing a re-assessment, on the grounds that the Assessing Officer did not conduct a proper inquiry into the source of cash deposits amounting to Rs.1.64 crore in the assessee's bank account. The Tribunal examined the materials on record, including the Profit and Loss account, balance sheet, and bank account extracts provided by the assessee, and concluded that the Assessing Officer had adequately addressed the issue during the original assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 137742 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-02-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 08-02-2023
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 06-05-2021
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH, ‘A’ PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA. No.146/PUN/2021 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Anjali Dilip Nahar, 1997/19, S.No.310, Akshay Ginning Factory, Station Road, Partur, Jalna 431 501 Maharashtra PAN : ABPPN7119K Vs. Pr.CIT-1, Nashik Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, VP : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 04-03-2021 passed by the Pr.CIT, Nashik-1 u/s.263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) in relation to the assessment year 2010-11. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that the Assessing Officer (AO) issued notice u/s.148 for examining the source of cash deposited in saving account maintained in Sangli Urban Assessee by Shri M.K. Kulkarni Revenue by Shri Keyur Patel Date of hearing 09-02-2023 Date of pronouncement 09-02-2023 ITA No.146/PUN/2021 Anjali Dilip Nahar 2 Cooperative Bank (SUCB). The assessee furnished necessary details by contending that no such Savings Account was maintained and the bank account referred to therein was, in fact, Current Account appearing in the books of account. The AO got satisfied with the details furnished by the assessee in respect of her contention and passed the assessment order. The ld. Pr.CIT invoked jurisdiction u/s.263 and held that the AO did not conduct proper enquiry while completing the assessment u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 and failure to make addition towards bank deposits rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. He, therefore, set-aside the assessment order and directed the AO to reframe the assessment afresh as per law. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee has come up in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. Having heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record, it is seen that the proceedings by way of notice u/s.148 of the Act were initiated to verify the source of cash amounting to Rs.1.64 crore deposited in the bank account. The assessee furnished before the AO copy of Profit and loss account and balance sheet and also extract of bank account of SUCB with cash book by submitting that cash of Rs.1.64 crore was deposited ITA No.146/PUN/2021 Anjali Dilip Nahar 3 in SUCB, a current account maintained from regular transactions and withdrawals from the same or the other bank account. During the course of revision proceedings, the assessee reiterated the same and furnished a tabulation which has been reproduced at page 3 of the impugned order, giving break-up of total cash withdrawals from the two bank accounts, namely, State Bank of Hyderabad and Sangli Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. totaling Rs.1.69 crore, which were deposited in SUCB to the tune of Rs.1.64 crore and in State Bank of Hyderabad Rs.50,000/-. Thus, it can be seen that the deposits in the SUCB are nothing but withdrawals from Sangli Urban Cooperative Bank and State Bank of Hyderabad. A total sum of Rs.1.69 crore was withdrawn from these two banks and a sum of Rs.1.64 crore was deposited in these two banks. When the assessee is maintaining current account with the bank, which was properly reflected in the books of account, we fail to appreciate as to how it can be said that the assessee did not disclose the source of cash deposits in such bank account. The very fact that cash deposits in the bank are reflected in the books of account proves that the source is also there in the books of account itself by way of corresponding credit entry against the debit entry of cash deposit. The position would have ITA No.146/PUN/2021 Anjali Dilip Nahar 4 been otherwise, if the assessee had not declared the bank account in her books and made cash deposits, which would have required verification qua source. Here is a case in which the assessee furnished copy of extract of bank account of SUCB with cash book before the AO and also furnished entry wise details of cash deposited to the tune of Rs.1.64 crore in SUCB which is, in fact, a current account. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the AO passed an erroneous assessment order prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. We, therefore, set-aside the impugned order. 4. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 09 th February, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (R.S.SYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune; ददन ांक Dated : 09 th February, 2023 सतीश ITA No.146/PUN/2021 Anjali Dilip Nahar 5 आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपील थी / The Appellant; 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent 3. 4. 5. The Pr.CIT-1, Nashik DR, ITAT, ‘A’ Bench, Pune ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अदधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune Date 1. Draft dictated on 09-02-2023 Sr.PS 2. Draft placed before author 09-02-2023 Sr.PS 3. Draft proposed & placed before the second member JM 4. Draft discussed/approved by Second Member. JM 5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS Sr.PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS 7. Date of uploading order Sr.PS 8. File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS 9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk 10. Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11. Date of dispatch of Order. *