2018 (5) TMI 1251 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - unexplained cash deposits - Held that - We find that in this case the assessee has given detail basis of deposit of Rs. 10,45,500 in the bank account. The detailed source has been claimed to be out of the business income as well as agricultural income of the assessee and his family members. Deposit to the extent of Rs. 3,62,000 has been accepted by the Assessing Officer. Assessee has given detailed submissions as above. Furthermore, we note that the detailed source of the cash deposit transaction wise was also submitted. We further find that the above explanation cogently proves the entire source of deposits. The authorities below, in our considered opinion, have erred in party accepting the submissions of the assessee and partly rejecting the same - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Legality of notice issued under section 148 of IT Act 1961 and consequent assessment cancellation.
2. Addition of Rs. 3,62,000 on account of cash deposit in the bank account.
3. Justification of addition made by Assessing Officer and confirmed by CIT(A).
4. Denial of liability to be assessed interest under sections 234A & 234B of IT Act 1961.

Issue 1: Legality of Notice and Assessment Cancellation
The appeal was against the order dated 3rd July 2017 by the Commissioner (Appeals) relevant to the assessment year 2007-08. The Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 148 of the IT Act, which the assessee claimed to be illegal, invalid, and bad in law. The assessee filed a return of income in response to the notice, explaining the source of cash deposits in the bank account. The Assessing Officer treated a portion of the amount as unexplained and added it to the assessee's income. The assessee contended that the notice was illegal, and the assessment based on it should be canceled.

Issue 2: Addition of Cash Deposit
The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 3,62,000 on account of cash deposits in the assessee's bank account, which the CIT(A) confirmed. The assessee argued that the deposits included income from various sources, such as agricultural income, poultry farming income, and business income. The assessee provided evidence, including sale bills of agricultural produce, confirmations from family members, and explanations for the deposits. The Tribunal found that the detailed submissions and evidence provided by the assessee proved the entire source of deposits, leading to the setting aside of the CIT(A)'s order in favor of the assessee.

Issue 3: Justification of Addition
The assessee contended that the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) was unjustified, unwarranted, and bad in law. The assessee argued that all family members operated a single bank account, and the deposits included income from various family members engaged in agriculture, poultry farming, and business. The Tribunal noted that the authorities erred in partially accepting the submissions of the assessee and partly rejecting them. The detailed explanations and evidence provided by the assessee were found to be cogent and proved the entire source of deposits, leading to the allowance of the assessee's appeal.

Issue 4: Denial of Interest Assessment
The assessee denied liability to be assessed interest under sections 234A & 234B of the IT Act 1961, claiming that the interest levied was unjustified and unwarranted. However, the judgment did not provide further details or analysis regarding this issue.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order and favoring the detailed submissions and evidence provided by the assessee regarding the source of cash deposits in the bank account.