2006 (9) TMI 167 - HC - Income Tax

Unexplained money shown as receipt from the bank money shown in account books of assessee as received on 9.11.73 but assessee s account in the bank was debited on 12.11.73- bank manager in his letter has explained that he had made the payment after banking hours on 9.11.73, and had put the date 12th on the cheque in his own handwriting - This aspect has not been dealt with by the Tribunal hence tribunal is not justified in sustaining the additions

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of the cash book entry regarding a cheque received from a bank and its subsequent addition to the assessee's income.

Analysis:
The primary issue in this case revolves around the interpretation of a cash book entry by the Assessing Officer, where the assessee introduced cash amounting to Rs. 1,10,000, allegedly received from a bank. The Assessing Officer noted discrepancies in the dates of receipt and entry, leading to suspicion regarding the source of the funds. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) reversed the findings, emphasizing the manager's statement certifying the payment date as November 9, 1973. However, the Tribunal restored the addition, citing contradictions in the manager's statements and the cashier's testimony. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of the bank records and the stamped date on the cheque, ultimately upholding the Assessing Officer's decision.

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) based their decision on the manager's letter, confirming the cash payment on November 9, 1973, supported by the cashier's account of the transaction. They noted the entry in the bank records on November 12, 1973, due to intervening holidays, as corroborative evidence of the payment date. The Commissioner deemed the Assessing Officer's conclusion unjustified and deleted the addition to the assessee's income, emphasizing the credibility of the manager and cashier's statements.

The Tribunal's rationale for overturning the Commissioner's decision was primarily centered on discrepancies in the manager and cashier's statements, disregarding the corroborative evidence from the bank records. The Tribunal failed to address the significance of the entry date in the bank records and the manager's explanation for the delayed entry. The Tribunal's approach was deemed incorrect by the High Court, as it did not adequately consider the evidence presented by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) regarding the payment date and the manager's discretionary power. The High Court concurred with the assessee's argument, criticizing the Tribunal's flawed analysis and ultimately ruled in favor of the assessee, setting aside the Tribunal's decision and disposing of the reference accordingly.