9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (6) TMI 232 - AT - Income TaxAddition on cash deposits in bank account - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - CIT(A) has followed the orders of the ITAT in the case of ACIT vs. Baldev Raj Charla 2008 (12) TMI 241 - ITAT DELHI-C and Moongipa Investment Ltd. vs. ITO 2011 (8) TMI 1067 - ITAT DELHI and deleted the addition in dispute wherein held that simply because there was a time gap between the cash withdrawal and cash deposits in bank the explanation of the assessee cannot be rejected, unless there is a finding that the amount was used somewhere else. In the instant case also it is observed that there is no finding of by the AO that the cash withdrawals had been used anywhere else by the appellant. Moreover, the appellant has also submitted details from which it can be observed that the appellant had substantial withdrawing for its household expenses. - Decided in favour of assesse. Accepting of additional evidence - Held that - CIT(A) has deleted the addition of made by the AO by following the ITAT orders in the case of ACIT vs. Baldev Raj Charla and Moongipa Investment Ltd. vs. ITO supra . Hence, the question of providing an opportunity to rebut as per the provision of Rule 46A is concerned, does not arise and as such is dismissed - Decided in favour of assesse.
Issues:
1. Deletion of addition of cash deposits based on appellant's explanation during appellate proceedings. 2. Admissibility of fresh submission regarding cash transactions without verification or opportunity for AO to rebut. 3. Validity of the Ld. CIT(A)'s order. 4. Request for leave to amend grounds of appeal. 5. Upholding the impugned order. Issue 1: Deletion of Cash Deposits Addition The Revenue appealed against the Ld. CIT(A)'s order deleting a cash deposit addition of Rs. 74,95,500 based on the appellant's explanation during appellate proceedings. The Ld. CIT(A) considered the appellant's submissions, AO's findings, and bank account details. The AO observed cash deposits but disagreed with the appellant's explanation, deeming them unexplained. The Ld. CIT(A) noted substantial withdrawals preceding deposits, indicating redeposits for failed property deals and household expenses. Citing ITAT precedents, the Ld. CIT(A) held the time gap between withdrawals and deposits insufficient to justify the addition. The ITAT upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing the lack of evidence showing alternative use of withdrawn funds, leading to deletion of the addition. Issue 2: Admissibility of Fresh Submission The Ld. CIT(A) admitted the appellant's fresh submission without independent verification or providing the AO an opportunity to rebut, raising concerns under Rule 46A. However, the ITAT dismissed this ground, as the deletion of the cash deposit addition was based on precedents and the lack of alternative fund use, rendering the verification issue moot. Consequently, the ITAT dismissed the second ground related to the verification process. Issue 3: Validity of Ld. CIT(A)'s Order The Revenue contended that the Ld. CIT(A)'s order was erroneous and not legally sound. However, the ITAT found the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision well-founded, as it aligned with established ITAT precedents and the facts of the case. The ITAT upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s order, concluding that it was reasoned and legally sound, thereby dismissing the appeal. Issue 4: Amendment of Grounds of Appeal The appellant sought leave to add, alter, amend, or forgo any grounds of appeal during the hearing. However, no specific amendments were made during the proceedings, and the grounds of appeal remained unchanged throughout the case. Issue 5: Upholding the Impugned Order After thorough consideration of the arguments, precedents, and facts presented, the ITAT upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The ITAT pronounced the decision in open court on 18/03/2015, affirming the deletion of the cash deposit addition and dismissing the appeal. This detailed analysis provides insights into the issues raised, the arguments presented, and the final decision rendered by the ITAT in the case.
|
