Sh. Puneet Ahuja, Ambala Cantt V. ITO, Ward -2, Ambala

ITA 194/CHANDI/2023

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Shri Puneet Ahuja against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC, Delhi, which confirmed the addition of Rs.21,47,422 as unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO had initially noted cash deposits totaling Rs.33,04,422 in the assessee's bank accounts and, after considering the assessee's explanations and the turnover of his business, added the remaining amount as unexplained. The CIT(A) upheld this addition. The Tribunal found that the AO had not adequately considered the assessee's submissions and the confirmations from the parties involved in the loan transactions, leading to the restoration of the matter to the AO for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 127863 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-07-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 17-07-2023
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 05-04-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 133(6)

Judgement Text

आयकर अपील य अ धकरण,च डीगढ़ यायपीठ, च डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, “A” CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No 194/CHD/2023 नधा रण वष / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Puneet Ahuja, C/o Rajiv Goel & Associates, 179, Bank Road, Ambala Cantt. Vs The ITO, Ward – 2, Ambala. थायीलेखासं./PAN NO: AQWPA5403F अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent नधा रती क ओर से/Assessee by: Shri Dhruv Goel, CA राज व क ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Manveet Singh Sehgal, Sr. DR स ु नवाई क तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 18.07.2023 उदघोषणा क तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 19.07.2023 आदेश/Order Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] dated 11.02.2023 pertaining to 2015-16 assessment year. 2. The assessee is aggrieved by the action of the CIT(A) in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer (in short ‘the AO’) of Rs.21,47,422/- u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ITA No.194/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2015-16 Page 2 of 4 ( in short ‘the Act’) on account of unexplained cash credits in the bank account of the assessee. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the AO noted that there were cash deposits amounting to Rs.33,04,422/- into the bank accounts of the assessee. On being asked to explain about this, the assessee explained that the said cash credits were out of the cash sales and also out of the payments received back on account of short term loans given to certain parties/persons. It was also explained that further an amount of Rs.1,70,000/- was received by the assessee from his wife and Rs.55,000/- received through cheque from some other party ‘Star-99’. The AO considered the abovesaid submissions of the assessee and issued notices u/s 133(6) of the Act to the various parties from whom the assessee claimed to have received back the loan amounts given in the past. However, the AO concluded that no satisfactory explanation of deposits and payments given to other persons was either received from the assessee or from the persons to whom notice u/s 133(6) was issued. Thereafter, the AO gave benefit to the assessee of the annual turnover of Rs.9,32,500/- and the amount of Rs.1,70,000/- received from his wife and Rs.55,000/- received through cheque from Star-99 and made the addition of the remaining amount of Rs.21,47,422/- as unexplained cash credits. ITA No.194/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2015-16 Page 3 of 4 4. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions so made by the AO vide an ex-parte order dated 29.12.2017. 5. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that all the persons to whom the notice u/s 133(6) was issued, duly responded and confirmed the taking of loan in the past and return of the amount. However, the AO totally ignored the confirmations filed by the said persons. He has further submitted that even during the year, there was a cash withdrawal of Rs.10.77 lacs, which the AO did not consider while making the impugned additions. He has submitted that the AO has neither given adequate opportunity to the assessee to explain the entire cash credits nor has examined the documents/evidences furnished by the assessee. The ld. Counsel for the assessee in this respect has relied upon the Cash Flow Statement/summary of sources of cash deposits etc. 6. The ld. DR, on the other hand has relied upon findings of the lower authorities. 7. Considering the rival submissions, we find that the AO has not discussed the aforesaid contentions raised by the assessee in the impugned assessment order. The matter is, accordingly, restored to the file of the AO with the direction that the AO will consider the evidences/submissions of the assessee regarding the source of cash deposits in his bank ITA No.194/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2015-16 Page 4 of 4 account and thereafter decide the issue afresh in accordance with law. Needless to say that the assessee will be given proper and adequate opportunity to explain his case. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 19 th July,2023. Sd/- ( VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) लेखा सद य/ Accountant Member Sd/- ( SANJAY GARG) या यक सद य/ Judicial Member “Poonam.” आदेशक त(ल)पअ*े)षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant 2. यथ / The Respondent 3. आयकरआय ु +त/ CIT 4. )वभागीय त न.ध, आयकर अपील"य आ.धकरण, च0डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाड फाईल/ Guard File आदेशान ु सार/ By order, सहायकपंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar