2023 (8) TMI 1418 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 68 - delay in sending the money to Delhi and deposits in amounts less than Rs. 50, 000/- - assessee vehemently stated that the addition cannot be made u/s. 68 of the Act in as much as assessee does not maintain any books of account and the cash was found to be deposited in the bank account therefore provisions of section 68 of the Act do not apply - HELD THAT - There is no dispute that some land was sold at Meghalaya in 1989 for a consideration of Rs.24.50 lacs. It is also not in dispute that the sale consideration was kept by the cousin brother of the assessee at Meghalaya. What is not understandable and is beyond the human probability that the brother of the assessee kept such a huge amount at Meghalaya since 1989 till 2006. It is also not understandable nor it has been proved before any authority including us as to how such a huge amount travelled in cash from Meghalaya to Delhi. The logic behind deposit of cash of Rs. 49, 000/- each time in the bank account is also not justified. To sum up the factual matrix is not commensurate with the human probability. On such unbelievable facts the additions cannot be deleted merely on technical ground that the AO mentioned section 68 instead of section 69 of the Act. The peculiar facts of the case discussed here in above do not justify any relief on this count. The appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The judgment involves the confirmation of addition made by the AO under section 68 of the Act, pertaining to the assessment year 2007-08.

Confirmation of Addition under Section 68:
The appeal was against the order of the CIT(A) confirming the addition made by the AO under section 68 of the Act amounting to Rs.2002801. In the previous round of litigation, the CIT(A) had deleted the addition, but the Tribunal restored the issue back to the AO for fresh assessment proceedings. The AR of the assessee presented a different copy of the will in the fresh assessment proceedings, raising doubts about its genuineness. The AO questioned the delay in sending money to Delhi and the pattern of deposits in amounts less than Rs. 50,000. The explanation provided by the assessee regarding bank charges for cash deposits was not accepted by the AO, leading to the addition being made. The Counsel for the assessee argued that since the source of the amount was explained as sale proceeds of land, the addition should not have been made under section 68. However, the Tribunal found the factual matrix implausible, questioning the movement of a significant amount in cash from Meghalaya to Delhi over a long period. The Tribunal upheld the findings of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal.

Separate Judgement:
The judgment was delivered by SH. N. K. BILLAIYA, Accountant Member, and SH. YOGESH KUMAR US, Judicial Member.

This summary provides a detailed overview of the issues involved in the legal judgment, focusing on the confirmation of the addition under section 68 of the Act for the assessment year 2007-08. The Tribunal's decision highlights the importance of substantiating claims with plausible explanations and the implications of maintaining consistent and credible documentation in tax matters.