Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (9) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2017 (9) TMI 1848 - AT - Income Tax


Issues:
Two separate appeals by the Assessee against orders of Ld. CIT(A)-10 & Ld. CIT(A)-5 for A.Ys. 2011-12 & 2012-13, common facts in both appeals, treatment of cash deposits in bank account, explanation by Assessee regarding source of cash, contention of business receipts, modification of findings by ITAT.

Analysis:
The ITAT Ahmedabad heard two separate appeals by the Assessee against orders of Ld. CIT(A)-10 & Ld. CIT(A)-5 for A.Ys. 2011-12 & 2012-13, respectively. As the facts were common in both appeals, they were heard together and disposed of by a common order for convenience. The Assessee was confronted during scrutiny assessment regarding cash deposits in a bank account and asked to explain the sources of the cash deposited. The Assessee claimed the cash belonged to a firm where he was a partner, raised through unsecured loans to meet liquidity requirements, and immediately transferred to the firm. However, the AO found this explanation unsubstantiated and made additions to the income. The Assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was unsuccessful.

During the ITAT hearing, the Assessee presented a new argument that the money deposited was from business done outside the books, suggesting only profit should be added. The Assessee pointed out the immediate transfer of cash to the firm's account. The DR supported the AO's findings. The ITAT acknowledged the cash deposits and the Assessee's unsubstantiated explanation. However, upon reviewing the bank ledger, it noted the immediate transfer to the firm's account, indicating a business connection. Despite lack of detailed support for the business receipts claim, the ITAT concluded that 50% of the cash deposited should be treated as the Assessee's income. The ITAT modified the CIT(A)'s findings and directed the AO to treat 50% of the cash as undisclosed income. As a result, the Assessee's appeals were partly allowed by the ITAT.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates