2012 (7) TMI 343 - AT - Income Tax

Addition to the income of assessee u/s 68 - Held that - As there was sufficient cash withdrawal from the bank account of M/s. Ocean Trading Company during the relevant period and Assessee s wife was partner of M/s. Ocean Trading Company - Ledger account of capital account of wife of assessee from the books of firm also reflects the withdrawals made by her. Thus, the facts regarding the withdrawal of cash from the capital account of her are not in dispute and facts regarding the purpose for which the withdrawal was made were also well established - The person with whom the deal of purchase of property was made has also confirmed the fact regarding the transaction entered into for purchase of the property. Therefore, there is no doubt that cash balance was available with the wife of the assessee - as the amount was given by her to her husband which in turn has deposited in his bank account, not stating specifically regarding the character of transaction between husband and wife whether it was loan or gift, shall not be sufficient to treat the source of the amount deposited in the bank account of the assessee as unexplained - in favour of assessee.

Issues:
Appeal against deletion of addition u/s 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Deletion of Addition u/s 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961

The appeal stemmed from an assessment where cash was deposited in the assessee's bank account, leading to an addition of Rs. 21,65,000 under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The CIT (A) deleted this addition based on detailed considerations. The CIT (A) found that the cash was withdrawn from a company where the appellant's wife and son were partners for the purpose of a property purchase transaction. The appellant received the cash from his wife, which was later refunded by the property seller, and the appellant deposited it in his bank account. The CIT (A) concluded that the source of the deposit was genuine and adequately explained. Moreover, the AO failed to issue a show cause notice before framing the assessment, which was a statutory requirement under section 144. The appellant's inability to attend the assessment proceedings due to shifting to Mumbai and professional negligence by representatives were considered valid reasons for non-compliance. The CIT (A) deemed the AO's remand report as lacking evidentiary value and held that the appellant satisfactorily explained the source of cash deposits.

Issue 2: Grounds of Appeal

The grounds of appeal raised by the revenue primarily challenged the deletion of the addition under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The revenue contended that the transaction between the wife and the assessee was not established, and the CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition. The revenue argued that the assessee's admission of not maintaining any books of accounts during the assessment proceedings should have been considered. Additionally, the revenue claimed that the proof of cash withdrawal by the company was not provided by the assessee during the assessment or remand report proceedings. However, the CIT (A) had admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee and provided ample opportunity to the Assessing Officer to verify the source of cash deposits. The CIT (A) upheld the deletion of the addition based on substantial evidence presented by the assessee, including bank records and transaction details.

Conclusion

The Appellate Tribunal, after hearing both sides, upheld the CIT (A)'s order and dismissed the revenue's appeal. The Tribunal found that there was sufficient evidence to support the genuineness of the source of cash deposits in the assessee's bank account. The withdrawals made by the appellant's wife from the company's capital account, coupled with the transaction details for property purchase, were well-documented and established. The Tribunal emphasized that the lack of specific characterization of the transaction between the husband and wife did not render the source of the deposited amount as unexplained. Ultimately, the Tribunal sustained the CIT (A)'s order, concluding that the revenue had not provided evidence to counter the explanations and evidence presented by the assessee.

This comprehensive analysis highlights the key legal aspects and arguments involved in the judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT, Delhi.

← Previous Next →