Kishor Namdeo Jadhav, Pune V. Income-tax Officer, Ward - 6(3), Pune

ITA 1735/PUN/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4851 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 8 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-04-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 17-07-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: B.C. MALAKER
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1735/PUN/2017 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Kishor Namdeo Jadhav, Gala No.77, Near Nehru Chowk, Shukrawar Peth, Pune- 411002. PAN : AASPJ6963H Vs. ITO, Ward- 6(3), Pune. Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 4, Pune [‘CIT(A)’ for short] dated 22.02.2017 for the assessment year 2013-14. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual engaged in the business of trading in fish etc. The return of income for the assessment year 2013-14 was filed on 05.04.2014 declaring total income of Rs.3,65,963/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Assessee by : Shri B.C. Malaker Revenue by : Shri Piyushkumar Singh Yadav Date of hearing : 14.03.2022 Date of pronouncement : 08.04.2022 ITA No.1735/PUN/2017 2 Ward- 6(3), Pune (‘the Assessing Officer’) vide order dated 23.03.2016 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) at a total income of Rs.67,15,960/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.63,50,000/- as unexplained cash deposits rejecting the explanation of the appellant that the cash deposits were made out from the agricultural income and the cash withdrawals made during the financial year 2011-12. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of assessment, an appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Being aggrieved by the above decision of the ld. CIT(A), the appellant is in appeal before us. 5. Before us, ld. AR has filed the financial statements showing the withdrawals made and also the cash deposits made in the bank account. It is submitted that the bank account is jointly held by the assessee along with his two brothers. He also filed the copy of the savings bank account. He submitted that the cash deposits were made out of the cash withdrawals made from the same account. It is asserted that when the cash was withdrawn from the bank, in the absence of any evidence as to the utilization, the same should be treated as available for re-deposit. Thus, it was submitted that the ITA No.1735/PUN/2017 3 lower authorities were not justified in making the addition as unexplained cash deposits in the savings bank account. 6. On the other hand, ld. CIT-DR placing reliance on the orders of the lower authorities pleaded that there was no evidence on record as to how the cash withdrawals were utilized for the purpose of making the deposits in the savings bank account. 7. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present appeal relates to the addition on account of unexplained cash deposits in the savings bank account held by the assessee along with other two brothers. The assessee had asserted before us that he offered the explanation in support of the source of the cash deposits before Assessing Officer as well as ld. CIT(A). Pleadings were made that the cash deposits were made out of the earlier cash withdrawals made from the same savings bank account. Even before the ld. CIT(A) also, the appellant has raised the specific ground of appeal that the addition, if any, at all warranted can be made only to the extent of peak deposits which, indirectly seeks the benefit of earlier amount withdrawn from the bank account. These pleadings were neither discussed nor adverted to by the lower authorities. In the circumstances, we remit the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide this specific ground of ITA No.1735/PUN/2017 4 appeal. Thus, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 08 th day of April, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 08 th April, 2022. Sujeet आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)-4, Pune. 4. The Pr. CIT-3, Pune. 5. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “B” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.