Shri Sanjeet Singh Talwar, Lucknow V. Astt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow

ITA 665/LKW/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3969 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-10-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 19-10-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 26-10-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business income; Peak credit

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH SMC, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI P. K. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.665/LKW/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2011-2012 SHRI SANJEET SINGH TALWAR, PROP. M/S ALASKA TECH, B-1/204, NIRALA NAGAR, LUCKNOW. PAN:AEMPT1592G VS. A.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUCKNOW. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI ABHINAV MEHROTRA, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY SHRI AMIT NIGAM, D. R. DATE OF HEARING 19/10/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 21/10/2016 O R D E R THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-III, LUCKNOW DATED 21/08/2015 RELATING TO AS SESSMENT YEAR 2011- 2012. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL RELATES T O THE SUSTENANCE OF ADDITION OF RS.3,48,000/- BEING THE CASH DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT DURING THE YEAR ON DIFFERENT DATES FRO M 05/05/2010 TO 14/03/2011. 3. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, CAREFULLY CO NSIDERED THE SAME ALONG WITH THE ORDERS OF THE TAX AUTHORITIES BELOW. I FIND SUBSTANCE IN THE CONTENTION OF LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS CARRIED 2 OUT THE TRADING BUSINESS DURING THE YEAR AND OUT OF THE SALES MADE OF THE SPARE PARTS, THE CASH HAS BEEN DEPOSITED IN HIS BAN K ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE PROFIT FROM THE BUSINESS AT RS.7,86,730/-. THE NATURAL INFERENCE WILL BE THAT THE TOTAL SALES TURNO VER OF THE ASSESSEE WILL BE MUCH MORE THAN THE SUM OF RS.3,48,000/-. IT WAS FUR THER CONTENTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE CASH WI THDRAWN FROM THE BANK. IF AT ALL ANY ADDITION HAS TO BE MADE, THAT HAS TO BE ONLY IN RESPECT OF THE PEAK CREDIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AS THE CASH WITHDRAWAL ITSELF PROVES THE CASH DEPOSIT. I, THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY TO BOTH THE PARTIES, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND RES TORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE DIRECTION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL VERIFY FROM THE TURNOVER BEING MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WHETHER THE SAID CASH DEPOSIT IS AGAINST THE TURNOVER SHOWN BY THE ASSESS EE IN ITS PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT OR AGAINST THE CASH WITHDRAWAL MADE FROM THE BANK TO THE EXTENT THE SAID DEPOSIT RELATES TO THE SALES OR THE CASH WI THDRAWAL BEING MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO CO-OPERATE THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER AND PRODUCE THE NECESSARY EVIDENCE AS MAY BE DESIRED BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER ABOUT THE SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOSIT. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21/10/2016) SD/. ( P. K. BANSAL ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED:21/10/2016 *SINGH 3 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR