9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 1871 - AT - Income TaxIncome from undisclosed sources - when the assessee has never disclosed four such bank accounts to the department, even in the statement recorded u/s.131 by the AO - HELD THAT - CIT(A) observed that he has gone through the bank account and other documents and found the submission of the assessee to be correct. He observed that the assessee has paid the amounts to M/s. Reeva (P) Ltd. for purchase of a flat at Sirdi in the name of Smt Archana Samal. This shows that the assessee s account was used for transactions on behalf of his sister Smt Archana Samal and the payments made by the assessee for the property in the name of Smt Archana Samal are sourced from Smt. Samal. Smt. Samal is assessed to tax and return filed for the Assessment year 2010-11 shows returned income of ₹ 37,75,150/-. Therefore, the CIT(A) held that the submission of the assessee that an amount of ₹ 14 lacs was received from Smt. Samal in cash and deposited in the HDFC Bank account from which Cheque/DD/cash was paid for purchase of the property in the name of Smt. Samal is credible and acceptable. Hence, he held that the source of deposit of ₹ 14 lakh out of ₹ 25,31,686/-, is explained and deleted the addition to the extent of ₹ 14 lakhs and sustained balance amount of ₹ 11,31,686/-. D.R. though supported the order of the Assessing Officer has brought no positive and credible material on record to controvert the findings of the CIT(A) who after appreciating all the facts of the case deleted the addition of ₹ 15 lakhs. In the circumstances, we find no good reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A), which is hereby confirmed and ground of revenue is dismissed. Addition under the head unexplained receipts in cash/cheque - CIT (A) has himself admitted that there is a mismatch of dates in the submission made by the so-called creditor of ₹ 9,45,000/- - HELD THAT - CIT(A) also observed that the record shows that the assessee received an amount of ₹ 10 lakhs by RTGS on 9.3.2010 from Capt Mohapatra and 22.3.2010 and cash of ₹ 12 lakhs was deposited on 31.3.2010. The bank account also shows that an amount of ₹ 11 lakhs was returned to Capt. Mohapatra by RTGS. Therefore, he held that the explanation of the assessee that ₹ 11 lakhs was received by Capt Mohapatra including cash of ₹ 1 lakh was correct. Further, Capt. Mohapatra has confirmed by filing confirmation having given amount of ₹ 11 lakhs, ₹ 10 lakhs by RTGS and ₹ 1 lakh as cash to the assessee. Therefore, he held that there is no merit in the addition and treated the sum of ₹ 11 lakhs out of ₹ 12 lakhs as explained and deleted the addition of ₹ 11 lakhs and sustained the addition of ₹ 1 lakh. D.R. relied on the order of the Assessing Officer. He could not bring any positive material on record to controvert the above findings of the CIT(A). We find that the CIT(A) after appreciating the facts of the case in its entirety has deleted the addition. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A), which is hereby confirmed and ground of appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Unexplained deposit in HDFC bank account - HELD THAT - The assessee explained that ₹ 4,04,991/- was deposited out of ₹ 5,05,000/- received from Smt. Archana Samal which is part of ₹ 19,05,000/- received in cash from the assessee. Thus, it cannot be said that the assessee could not explain the source of ₹ 4,04,991/- being deposit made in HDFC Account No. 00441000124939. D.R. could not controvert the above submission of ld A.R. of the assessee by bringing any positive material on record. Therefore, we set aside the orders of lower authorities and delete the addition made as unexplained deposit in HDFC Bank and allow this ground of the appeal. Deposits in the bank account was out of withdrawal from different banks - HELD THAT - We find that no material was brought on record either by the Assessing Officer or by the CIT(A) after examining the details and documents filed by the assessee before lower authorities to show that the assessee did not have the amount available with it out of earlier withdrawals made from different banks for making the same as deposit in the bank account as claimed by the assessee. In absence of any such material being brought on record, we find that the lower authorities were not justified in making the addition in the hands of the assessee as unexplained deposit in bank account. Therefore, we set aside the orders of lower authorities and delete the addition and allow this ground of appeal of the assessee. Unexplained cash deposit - HELD THAT - D.R. could not controvert the submission of ld A.R. of the assessee that the deposit of ₹ 1 lakh in bank account was out of maturity proceeds of fixed deposit made by the assessee by withdrawal through yourself cheque from Axis Bank on 12.8.2010. Therefore, we set aside the orders of lower authorities and delete the addition of ₹ 1 lakhs and allow this ground of appeal of the assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition under "income from undisclosed sources" (?15,00,000). 2. Deletion of addition under "unexplained receipts in cash/cheque" (?26,71,433). 3. Confirmation of addition as unexplained deposit in HDFC bank account (?4,04,991). 4. Confirmation of addition of ?3,00,000. 5. Confirmation of addition of ?8,31,677. 6. Confirmation of addition of ?1,00,000. 7. Alleged double addition by upholding cash deposits in HDFC and Axis Banks while disallowing cash deposit from various banks. Detailed Analysis: 1. Deletion of addition under "income from undisclosed sources" (?15,00,000): The Revenue's grievance was that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of ?15,00,000 under "income from undisclosed sources" due to four undisclosed bank accounts. The Assessing Officer (AO) added ?30,37,987 as undisclosed income since these accounts were not disclosed in the return. The CIT(A) reduced the addition by ?15,00,000 after verifying the sources of deposits, such as transfers between accounts and transactions on behalf of the assessee's sister. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no reason to interfere as the CIT(A) had thoroughly reviewed the evidence. 2. Deletion of addition under "unexplained receipts in cash/cheque" (?26,71,433): The AO added ?27,71,433 as unexplained cash deposits, which the assessee claimed were received from Sri Soumya Ranjan Samal for construction expenses. The CIT(A) deleted the addition after confirming the transactions and the high net worth of the creditor. The Tribunal found no positive material to contradict the CIT(A)'s findings and upheld the deletion of ?26,71,433. 3. Confirmation of addition as unexplained deposit in HDFC bank account (?4,04,991): The AO added ?4,04,991 as unexplained deposits in HDFC Bank A/c No.00441000124939, which the assessee claimed were part of ?19,05,000 received from his sister. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition due to lack of credible explanation. The Tribunal, however, found that the source of ?4,04,991 was explained as part of the ?19,05,000 received from the sister and deleted the addition. 4. Confirmation of addition of ?3,00,000: The AO added ?3,00,000 as unexplained deposits, which the assessee claimed were received from his brother. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition due to lack of evidence. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no credible evidence to support the assessee's claim. 5. Confirmation of addition of ?8,31,677: The AO added ?8,31,677 as unexplained deposits, which the assessee claimed were redeposits of earlier withdrawals. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition. The Tribunal found no material to contradict the assessee's claim that the deposits were from earlier withdrawals and deleted the addition. 6. Confirmation of addition of ?1,00,000: The AO added ?12,00,000 as unexplained deposits, which the assessee claimed included ?11,00,000 received from Capt. Mohapatra. The CIT(A) accepted ?11,00,000 but sustained ?1,00,000. The Tribunal found evidence that the ?1,00,000 deposit was from the maturity of a fixed deposit and deleted the addition. 7. Alleged double addition by upholding cash deposits in HDFC and Axis Banks while disallowing cash deposit from various banks: Given the Tribunal's findings in the previous issues, this ground became infructuous and was dismissed. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and partly allowed the assessee's appeal, confirming and deleting various additions based on the evidence and explanations provided. The Tribunal's detailed analysis upheld the CIT(A)'s findings where credible explanations were given and deleted additions where the source of deposits was satisfactorily explained.
|
