2014 (10) TMI 752 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained credits u/s 68 Acceptance of additional evidence - Notice sent to assessee but assessee did not appear before AO Cash deposit in the assessee s bank account treated as income from undisclosed sources Held that - The contention of the assessee that cash were out of sale proceeds collected by assessee on behalf of his employer M/s. Anup Service Station was not supported by any corroborating evidence like name & address of the persons form whom the cash was collected - Since the assessee has acted as an agent on behalf of his employer, to collect cash for his employer and, therefore, all customers would only have account of Anup Service Station in their books, and assessee s name shall never appear in their books of accounts and therefore, AO is wrong, impractical and misplaced - CIT(A) had passed a well reasoned and speaking order to delete the addition of ₹ 21,37,000/- out of ₹ 21,82,500/- as it is glorifiable with the documentary evidence there is no reason to interfere in the order of the CIT(A) Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to deletion of addition of Rs. 21,82,500 made under section 68 for assessment year 2008-09.
2. Challenge to deletion of addition of Rs. 18,26,717 on account of unexplained cash deposit for assessment year 2009-10.

Issue 1:
The first issue pertains to the challenge against the deletion of an addition of Rs. 21,82,500 made under section 68 for the assessment year 2008-09. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) had made the addition due to non-compliance with notices and information received regarding cash deposits. The appellant contested the service of notices and provided explanations for non-compliance. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] upheld the A.O.'s contention that notices were duly served, leading to the deletion of the addition. The CIT(A) also considered the appellant's absence during the service of certain notices and accepted additional evidence, partially relieving the appellant of the addition. The Department appealed against this decision, arguing for the restoration of the A.O.'s order. However, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding the order just and appropriate based on the evidence and circumstances presented.

Issue 2:
The second issue involves the challenge against the deletion of an addition of Rs. 18,26,717 on account of unexplained cash deposit for the assessment year 2009-10. The CIT(A) had upheld a partial addition while deleting a significant portion of the amount based on the evidence and explanations provided by the appellant, similar to the decision made for the assessment year 2008-09. The Department objected to this decision, but the Tribunal, considering the identical nature of the issues and evidence presented, upheld the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the appeal of the revenue.

In summary, the Tribunal dismissed both appeals of the revenue, upholding the decisions of the CIT(A) in both cases based on the evidence, explanations provided by the appellant, and the circumstances surrounding the additions of unexplained cash deposits. The judgments emphasized the importance of compliance with notices and the need for substantial evidence to support claims in such tax matters.