SHRI RAJESH GUPTA , JAMMU V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONE OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

ITA 450/ASR/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 103 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8541 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-11-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 08-11-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 23-06-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

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. 450/Asr/2019 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sh. Rajesh Gupta, 121 A/D, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu [PAN: ACYPG 0743L] Vs. Deputy C. I. T., Central Circle, Jammu (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. R. K. Gupta, CA Respondent by : Sh. Girish Bali, CIT DR Date of Hearing: 09.11.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 15.11.2022 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 29.04.2019 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ludhiana in respect of Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: ITA No. 450/Asr/2019 Rajesh Gupta v. DCIT 2 “1. That the worthy CIT(A) is not justified in confirming an addition of Rs.38,000/- on account of cash deposited in Bank on 17.12.2016 when the reason of depositing this amount of demonetized currency stands substantiated and accepted. That the appellant craves, leave to alter, amend and add to substitute any ground of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” 3. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed an addition of Rs. 38,000/-, by concurring with the AO that it was an unexplained cash deposit in bank by the assessee as this much of demonetized currency got mixed-up with 100 rupee notes and hence deposited on 17.12.2016. 4. Having heard both the sides on the issue, we consider the amount of Rs. 38,000/- out of assessee’s personal savings although, the assessee deposited the same as his business cash. In our view, there is nothing wrong and no prohibition on either use of personal money for business or deposing it in the business/current account legally. What is important is source of the money/cash which is not disputed. Therefore, we do not concur with finding of the CIT(A) and accordingly, the addition of Rs. 38,000/- is deleted. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 15.11.2022 Sd/- Sd/- (Anikesh Banerjee) (Dr. M. L. Meena) Judicial Member Accountant Member ITA No. 450/Asr/2019 Rajesh Gupta v. DCIT 3 *GP/Sr/PS* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The CIT(Appeals) (4) The CIT concerned (5) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T True Copy By Order