2015 (6) TMI 1156 - AT - Income Tax

Additions u/s 69A - unexplained money in the bank accounts - corroborative evidence to indicate that the earlier withdrawn money was re-deposited in the bank accounts - Held that - We find force in the contention of the learned counsel that in the earlier years 2014 (10) TMI 975 - ITAT PANAJI the Tribunal has decided all these issues in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Respectfully following the order of the Coordinate Bench, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Acceptance of cash flow statement without corroborative evidence.
2. Reliance on cash flow statement entries.
3. Failure to consider factual findings of AO on unexplained money.
4. Ignoring admission of depositing unaccounted business proceeds.

Analysis:
1. The first issue revolves around the acceptance of the assessee's cash flow statement without corroborative evidence. The Revenue contended that the statement lacked proof of redepositing earlier withdrawn money into bank accounts. However, the Tribunal noted that similar grounds had been raised in previous years and decided in favor of the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal based on the precedent set in earlier cases.

2. The second issue concerns the reliance placed on the cash flow statement entries by the CIT(A). The Revenue argued that the statement was merely based on cash withdrawals and deposits without supporting evidence. Despite this contention, the Tribunal referenced past judgments where similar arguments were made and ruled in favor of the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

3. The third issue pertains to the failure to consider the factual findings of the Assessing Officer (AO) regarding unexplained money in bank accounts. The Revenue claimed that the CIT(A) did not take into account the AO's findings while making additions under section 69A. However, the Tribunal pointed out that in previous years, similar contentions were raised and resolved in favor of the assessee. Following the precedent, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

4. The final issue involves the Revenue's argument that the CIT(A) disregarded the assessee's admission of depositing unaccounted business proceeds into the bank accounts during a survey. The Revenue contended that the cash flow statement was an afterthought and should not be relied upon. However, the Tribunal, in line with previous decisions, upheld the assessee's position and dismissed the Revenue's appeal based on established precedents.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal based on consistent decisions in earlier cases where similar issues were raised and resolved in favor of the assessee. The judgment reaffirmed the importance of precedent and established legal principles in tax matters.