Sh. Pritpal Singh, Amritsar. V. The Income Tax Officer, Amritsar.

ITA 85/ASR/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3768 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 2 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-04-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 07-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• 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. 85/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Sh. Pritpal Singh, 384, Green Avenue, Amritsar [PAN: AMDPS 5236R] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(3), Amritsar (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : None Respondent by: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 19.04.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 26.04.2022 ORDER Per Anikesh Banerjee, JM: The instant appeal was filed against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Amritsar [in brevity the CIT(A)], bearing Appeal No. 15/2014-15 dated 16.11.2015 u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in brevity the Act], in respect of Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. Prelude: The assessee is individual capacity filed the return. The assessment order was passed u/s 147/143(3) of the Act, dated 30.01.2015. The ld. Assessing Officer (in brevity the AO) added back Rs. 10 Lac and Rs. 6,50,000/- for deposit of cash in the assessee’s Saving Bank A/cs for financial year 2006-07 related assessment year 2007-08. In different dates the assessee deposited his cash in two ITA No. 85/Asr/2016 Pritpal Singh v. ITO 2 bank accounts of Bank of India bearing account no-630810110000282 & 630828110000002 amount to Rs. 10 Lac and 6,50,000/- respectively. The ld. CIT(A) adjudicated the issue and reduced the addition an amount to Rs.1,57,370/- from the cash deposit amount to Rs. 6,50,000/-. Related cash deposit amount to Rs 10lac ld CIT(A) upheld addition of the ld AO. Accordingly, the addition was confirmed related amount to Rs. 4,92,630/- and Rs.10 Lac. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before us. 4. The counsel of the assessee filed a written submission with the details of Saving bank A/c and cash flow statement related to both the Saving bank A/c. 5. The ld. CIT(A) on other hand calculated the cash flow statement in his order in page no. 5 on the basis of the assessee’s nature of business. As the assessee filed the return u/s 44A of the Act and declared the net profit at the rate of 7.6%. As per the these calculations, the ld. CIT(A) only reduced at Rs.1,57,370/- from cash deposit amount to Rs.6,50,000/- and sustained the addition amount of Rs. 4,92,630/-. 6. In other cash deposit amount to Rs.10 Lac was not properly explained before both the Revenue authorities by the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition related the cash deposit amount to Rs. 10 Lac. 7. The ld. Departmental Representative (in brevity DR) filed a written note during hearing. The ld. DR made objection on the cash flow statement of the Saving Bank A/c and specially mentioned that the assessee deposited cash in bank amount to Rs. 6,50,000/- whereas in the business of the assessee the expenses incurred for purchase of Rs. 27,71,400/- in relation to turnover of Rs.29,80,566/-. ITA No. 85/Asr/2016 Pritpal Singh v. ITO 3 8. The ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted a written submission which is kept in record. The ld Counsel placed the judgment of Hon’able Punjab High Court in case of Shiv Charan Dass vs CIT, 126 ITR 263. Relied was made in coordinate bench of ITAT Amritsar in case of Sh Ram Nath & Raj Kumar, ITA-336 & 337/Asr/2006. But all are factually different with the assessee’s case. 9. We have carefully gone through both the submissions & considered the available records. We relied on jurisdictional High Court in the case of Smt. Kavita Chandra v. CIT(Appeals), Panchkula (2017) (P&H). In this case the case of Shiv Charan Dass vs CIT, supra was considered by the Hon’ble Lordship. As per Lordship there should be the link in between cash deposit & its source. Only the submission of cash flow related Saving Bank A/c and other documents are not serving purpose of clear link in between deposit & source. Also the documents are not placed before both the Revenue authorities. We feel that the assessee should get another opportunity to substantiate its document before the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the matter is remanded back to the ld. CIT(A) and the assessee is directed to produce all the relevant documents before the authority in favour of the argument. 10. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 26.04.2022 (Dr. M. L. Meena) (Anikesh Banerjee) Accountant Member Judicial Member Date: 26.04.2022 *GP/Sr. PS* Copy of the order forwarded to: ITA No. 85/Asr/2016 Pritpal Singh v. ITO 4 (1) The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The CIT(A), (4) The CIT concerned (5) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T (6) The Guard File True Copy By Order