9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Appeal by Revenue against deletion of addition made by Assessing Officer regarding cash deposited in bank account.
Summary: 1. The Revenue appealed against the deletion of addition of cash deposited amounting to Rs. 91,08,000 by the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) for AY 2006-07, based on the explanation provided by the assessee regarding the source of the cash. 2. The Assessing Officer added the cash deposited amount to the income of the assessee from undisclosed sources as the source of the cash was not explained by the assessee, leading to the assessment being done u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax(A) allowed the appeal by the assessee, holding that the cash deposited was only Rs. 32,86,000, which was explained by the availability of cash from the HUF bank account due to the sale of HUF property, supported by necessary documentation. 4. The Revenue contended that the Commissioner admitted additional evidence without following Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, and the impugned order was based on unreasonable grounds as the assessee allegedly concealed details regarding the cash deposits. 5. The assessee's representative argued that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was based on incorrect calculations and misinterpretation, and the source of cash deposited was properly explained as withdrawals from the HUF bank account related to the sale of HUF property. 6. The Tribunal noted the calculation mistake by the Assessing Officer and confirmed that the actual cash deposited was Rs. 32,86,000, as per the explanation provided by the assessee, supported by relevant documents. 7. The Commissioner admitted additional evidence under Rule 46A due to the appellant's hospitalization and the unavailability of bank statements, but did not follow the mandatory provisions of Rule 46A(3) for allowing the Assessing Officer to examine the evidence. 8. Referring to a judgment of the High Court, the Tribunal observed that the Commissioner did not follow the required procedure for considering additional evidence at the first appellate stage. 9. The Tribunal decided to restore the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after considering the additional evidence and providing a hearing opportunity to the assessee, as the Commissioner did not follow the proper procedure. 10. The appeal of the Revenue was allowed, and the matter was disposed of accordingly. Judgment delivered by: Shri J.S. Reddy, Accountant Member and Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial Member
|
