SHRI GURDEV SINGH , HOSHIARPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER , DASUYA

ITA 30/ASR/2023

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Gurdev Singh against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-1, Jalandhar, which confirmed the addition of Rs. 31,97,500 to the assessee's income for the assessment year 2010-11. The addition was initially made by the Income Tax Officer, Dasuya, under sections 144/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to unexplained cash deposits in the assessee's bank account. The assessee argued that the deposits were from legitimate sources, including cash withdrawals from his bank account and receipts from MoneyGram. The Tribunal, after reviewing the detailed cash flow statement and other documents submitted by the assessee, found that the assessee had adequately explained the source of the deposits and thus allowed the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 114818 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-08-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 25-07-2023
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 19-01-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147; 144; 250; 69A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 30/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Gurdev Singh, H. No. 12, Ward No.12, Mohalla Kainthan, VPO, Dasuya, Distt. Hoshiarpur. [PAN: -CKQPS9357C] (Appellant) Vs. Income Tax Officer, Dasuya. (Respondent) Appellant by None (Written Submission) Respondent by Sh. Rajiv Wadhera, Sr.DR. Date of Hearing 26.07.2023 Date of Pronouncement 04.08.2023 ORDER Per: Anikesh Banerjee, JM: The instant appeal of the assessee was filed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-1, Jalandhar, (in brevity ‘the CIT (A)’) order passed u/s 250 (6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in brevity the Act) for assessment year 2010-11. The impugned order was emanated from the order of I.T.A. No. 30/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 2 the ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward Dasuya, (in brevity the ld. AO) order passed u/s 144/147 of the Act. 2. The appeal was filed with a delay of 1196 days. The assessee filed condonation petition and explained that due to medical emergency, the delay was occurred. The supporting Hospital discharge summary of the assesseeis duly submitted with the condonation petition. The ld. DR had not made any objection against the condonation of delay. Accordingly, the delay for 1196 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds: “1. That the order passed by the Hon’ble CIT (A) dated 20.06.2019 is against the law and facts of the case. 2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon’ble CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in framing the impugned assessment order u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 and without complying with the mandatory condition u/s 147 as envisaged under the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon’ble CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making an addition of Rs. 31,97,500/-, on account of cash deposits, without considering I.T.A. No. 30/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 3 the submissions of assessee and without observing the principles of natural justice. 4. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.” 4. When the appeal was called for hearing, none was present on behalf of the assessee. On perusal of the record, we find that the assessee filed written submission and prayed to accept the appeal on basis of the written submission. We proceed to dispose of the appeal after hearing the ld. DR. 5. Brief facts as culled out from the records are that the assessee deposited cash in the bank account amount to Rs.31,97,500/- for the impugned assessment year. The assessment was completed u/s 144/147. So, the assessee was unable to explain the source of deposit before the ld. AO. The addition was confirmed the total deposit of cash amount to Rs. 31,97,500/- and undisclosed interest amount to Rs. 14,896/- and added back with total income. Aggrieved assessee, filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The issue was duly explained before the ld. CIT(A). The assessee claimed that the sufficient amount of cash was withdrawn from the bank account and also assessee received cash from the children through money gram. But the ld. CIT(A) had not accepted the assessee’s plea. I.T.A. No. 30/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 4 The ld. CIT(A) upheld the assessment order. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us. 6. The ld. AR filed a written submission which is kept in the record. The ld. AR placed the submission alongwith bank account of the assessee, cash flow and the receipt of the money gram which is enclosed in assessee’s paper book. The assessee duly explained the source and sufficient cash was withdrawn amount to Rs.30,26,000/- from the bank. The same explanation was filed before the ld. CIT(A). The paragraph 5.1 page 8 of the appeal order is reproduced as below: “5.1 I have carefully considered the facts of the case and submissions of the appellant.During the appeal proceedings, the assessee did not file any explanation regarding deposits of Rs. 31,97,000/- in his saving bank account with State Bank of India, Talab Road, Dasuya, during the F.Y. 2009-10. Therefore, the assessing officer made an addition of Rs. 31,97,000/- in the case of the assessee. During the appeal proceedings, a copy of bank statement of the assesee was filed and the cash deposits were explained as under:- Cash flow as on 31.03.2010 Op. cash as on 01.04.2009 1,20,000/- I.T.A. No. 30/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 5 Add: Receipts from money gram 3,00,000/- Add: Withdrawal from bank 30,26,000/- Total 34,46,000/- Less: Cash deposited in bank 31,97,500/- Less: Household expenses 1,50,000/- Balance 98,500/- It is observed the above cash flow filed by the assessee is not supported with any cogentevidence. No receipts of moneygramhas been filed. No date wise cash flow of withdrawals and deposits into the bank account has been filed. The assessee has failed to substantiate the cash deposits into his bank account. Therefore, the addition made by the AO on account of unexplained cash deposits is upheld u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act 1961. The order of the, assessing officer is modified accordingly.” 7. The ld. DR onlyrelied on the order of the revenue authorities. 8. We heard the rival submission and considered the documents available in the record. The assessee placed the bank account, cash flow statement and source of cash was duly explained. The document was duly submitted before the ld. CIT(A). But in absence of cash flow the cash deposit in bank was remained unexplained before the ld. CIT(A). The assessee had opening cash in hand Rs. I.T.A. No. 30/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 6 1,20,000/-, received cash money gram amount to Rs. 3,00,00/- and withdrawn cash from bank amount to Rs.30,26,000/- which was explained before the revenue. The monthwise cash flow of the assessee is duly reproduced as below. SUMMARY OF MONTH WISE CASH WITHDRAWALS & CASH AVAILABILITY DURING FY 2009-10: PARTICULARS WITHDRAWALS BALANCE Opening balance 1,20,000/- 1,20,000/- April - 1,20,000/- May 60,000/- 1,80,000/- June 1,16,798/- 2,96,798/- July 2,75,000/- 5,71,798/- August 5000/- 5,76,798/- September 7,40,000/- 13,16,798/- October 3,39,050/- 16,55,848/- November 1,00,000/- 17,55,848/- December 4,67,000/- 22,22,848/- January 10,18,465/- 32,41,313/- February 1,81,000/- 34,22,313/- March 26,000/- 34,48,313/- Without considering the bank account of the assessee the entire cash deposit in the bank account was added back u/s 69A of the Act. On perusal of record by verifying the day-wise cash flow, the assessee had sufficient cash balance to deposit cash in bank account. The summary of cash flow was submitted by the I.T.A. No. 30/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 7 assessee before the ld. CIT(A) but it was ignore4d. So, the addition of cash deposit amount to Rs. 31,97,500/- is quashed. 9. Considering the above discussion, the appeal of the assessee in Ground no.1 & 4 are general in nature. The Ground no.3 is allowed. The Ground no.4 is only remained for academic purpose. 10. In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No. 30/ASR/2023 is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 04.08.2023 Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. M. L. Meena) (ANIKESH BANERJEE) Accountant Member Judicial Member AKV Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4) The CIT (Appeals) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By order