Basanta Kumar Das, Angul V. ITO Angul Ward, , Angul

ITA 23/CTK/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5974 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-08-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 27-05-2022
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Salary income; TDS
• Section: 234B; 69A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BEFORE AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Basanta Kumar Das, Bye pass Road, Ghasi Sahi, PO: Pallahara, Dist: Angul. PAN/GIR No. (Appellant Per Bench This is CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 1.11.2021 in No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021 2017-18. 2. Shri P.K.Mishra, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR appeared for the revenue. 3. The only issue raised in this appeal is that the ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.15,92,500/ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.23/CTK/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Basanta Kumar Das, Bye- pass Road, Ghasi Sahi, PO: Pallahara, Dist: Angul. Vs. ITO, Angul Ward, Angul PAN/GIR No.ARQPD 7529 N (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Assessee by : Shri P.K.Mishra, AR Revenue by : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Date of Hearing : 18/8 Date of Pronouncement : 18/8 O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 1.11.2021 in /NFAC/S/250/2021-22/1036678798(1) for the assessment year Shri P.K.Mishra, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR appeared for the revenue. The only issue raised in this appeal is that the ld CIT(A) erred in g the addition of Rs.15,92,500/- made by the AO u/s. 69A. Page1 | 6 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITO, Angul Ward, Respondent) P.K.Mishra, AR : Shri S.C.Mohanty, DR 8/ 2022 8/2022 an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 1.11.2021 in 22/1036678798(1) for the assessment year Shri P.K.Mishra, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri The only issue raised in this appeal is that the ld CIT(A) erred in made by the AO u/s. 69A. ITA No.23/CTK/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Page2 | 6 4. The assesse is a peon working with Mahanadi Coal Field. During the period of demonetization, the assessee had deposited cash of Rs.15,92,500/- in his bank account between 9.11.2016 to 30.12.2016. The cash was specifically deposited on the following dates: i) Rs.2,00,000/- - 10.11.2016 ii) Rs.2,00,000/- - 11.11.2016 iii) Rs.2,00,000/- - 12.11.2016 iv) Rs.1,99,000/- - 13.11.2016 v) Rs. 5,50,000/- - 15.11.2016 vi) Rs. 2,43,500/- - 17.11.2016 5. On the basis of AIIMA database of the department, the Assessing Authority had issued notice to the assessee. There was non co-operation from the assessee insofar as mentioned by ld AR that the assessee was uneducated and he will not understand the notice. It was the submission that the assessment came to be completed, wherein, explanation from the assessee had been called for. It was noticed that the assessee used to withdraw the salary in cash within two days from the bank account and very minimal balance was maintained being less than Rs.1000/- in his bank account. The Assessing Officer treated the cash deposit as unexplained money of the assessee and brought it to tax by invoking the provisions of section 69A of the Act. Further, the assessee has not filed his return. It was the further submission that the salary income of the assessee has been brought to tax and credit for the TDS of Rs.69,890/- as mentioned in Form- 16 has also not been given. It was the submission that on appeal, the ld ITA No.23/CTK/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Page3 | 6 CIT(A) recognised the fact that between 1.4.2012 till 11.11.2016, the assessee has withdrawn approximately Rs.21 lakhs and after depositing the amount of Rs.15,92,500/-, the drawing of the assessee would be practically in the range of Rs.9000/- per month, which was too small for a family of five. It was the submission that the assessee is living in his own house and paying electricity bill of about Rs.300 to Rs.350/-, which shows that the assessee has a frugal life. It was the submission that the amount was actually the cash withdrawn and kept at home. It was the submission that the assessee has three children, one son and two daughters out of them one daughter is handicapped. It was the submission that to protect his savings, and also to protect the future of his children, he used to withdraw the money and kept at home. It was the submission that the assessee has no other source of income other than this employment. It was the prayer that the addition as made by the AO and confirmed by the ld CIT(A) be deleted in the interest of justice. It was the further submission that, admittedly, the salary income is taxable. Further, the benefit of TDS may be granted to the assessee and consequential interest under section 234A and 234B of the Act may not be levied as the salary income is liable for TDS and TDS has also been made. 6. In reply, ld Sr DR vehemently supported the order of the ld CIT(A). It was the submission that on an amount of expenditure of Rs.9000/- per month , it is practically impossible to survive. It was the submission that ITA No.23/CTK/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Page4 | 6 the assessee has not been able to give any explanation to the satisfaction of the Assessing officer in respect of the cash deposited in the bank account during the period of demonetization. It was the submission that the addition as made by the AO and as confirmed by the ld CIT(A) is liable to be upheld. 7. In respect of salary income, it was the submission that the assessee had taxable income and he was duty bound to file his return and pay taxes thereon. It was the submission that the addition made is liable to be confirmed. It was the submission that as the assessee has not filed his return, the benefit of TDS cannot be granted to the assessee. 8. We have considered the rival submissions. Coming to the issue of cash deposit in the bank account of the assessee, perusal of the bank statement as filed, and admittedly which has also been considered by the AO and ld CIT(A) shows that the assessee has been withdrawing his salary credited to his bank account within one or two days from the bank account. It also shows that the assessee is maintaining minimum balance in his bank account. The withdrawals are admittedly Rs.21 lakhs between 1.4.2012 to 11.11.2016. During the period of demonetization, the assessee has deposited the cash withdrawn earlier by him from bank account. There is no other deposits of cash other than this amount before and after this period. The money what has been deposited with the bank is reflected in the bank account and has not been withdrawn for a substantial period of ITA No.23/CTK/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Page5 | 6 time except for minimal drawings. Another peculiar facts in this case is that after money deposited in the bank account, the assessee is withdrawing in the range of Rs.8000 to Rs.10,000/- per month as can be seen from the withdrawal from the bank account. The surrounding circumstances shows that the cash deposited by the assessee in his bank account is nothing but cash withdrawn by him and retained by him in his physical possession. Further, it is also noticed that the assessee does not have any other sources of income. Regarding the argument that it is practically impossible to live on Rs.9000/- to Rs.10,000/- per month drawings is unsupported. In fact an outsourced multi tasking staff as on today gets about Rs.90,000/- to rs.10,000/- per month. They manage their family with this. This being so, we are of the view that the assessee has given substantial explanation which is also substantially proved with material facts and supported by the bank statement. In these circumstances, the addition as made by the AO and confirmed by the ld CIT(A) of Rs.15,92,500/- u./s 69A of the Act in respect of cash deposited by the assessee during the period of demonetization stands deleted. 9. Coming to the issue of salary income, admittedly, perusal of provisions of section 199 of the Act clearly shows that if the income is bring brought to tax, the credit of the TDS should be given to the assessee. Perusal of the assessment order also clearly shows that the Assessing Officer was very much in the possession of the Form-16, wherein, TDS of ITA No.23/CTK/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Page6 | 6 Rs.62,890/- has been shown. This being so, the AO is directed to grant the assessee the benefit of TDS in respect of his salary income brought to tax. 10. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 18/8/2022. Sd/- sd/- (Arun Khodpia) (George Mathan) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 18/8/2022 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) Copy of the Order forwarded to : By order Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Cuttack 1. The Appellant : Basanta Kumar Das, Bye- pass Road, Ghasi Sahi, PO: Pallahara, Dist: Angul 2. The Respondent: ITO, Angul Ward, Angul 3. The CIT(A)-,NFAC, Delhi 4. Pr.CIT-, Cuttack 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. //True Copy//