2022 (12) TMI 1004 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained deposits in bank account - assessee stated that the money was withdrawn for the purpose of making investment in house property, however, that could not be materialized - CIT(Appeals) has treated 1/3rd of such sum being available for redeposit - HELD THAT - As undisputedly the assessee had withdrawn out of his bank account a sum of Rs. 16,44,000/-. Out of this amount the assessee has claimed that he had deposited a sum of Rs. 10,96,500/-. Therefore, the authorities below were not justified in confirming the addition to the extent of Rs. 5,48,500/-. Revenue has not brought any material to suggest that the money as withdrawn by the assessee was utilized for any other purpose. Even if it is presumed that 1/3rd of such amount was utilized for house-hold expenses, still the assessee had 2/3rd of such amount. Therefore, Assessing officer was not justified in making the addition of the entire amount and the learned CIT(Appeals) was not justified in restricting the relief to the extent of 1/3rd of the total amount. Assessee appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. Addition of unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act.
3. Justification of the assessment order and principle of natural justice.
4. Charging of interest under section 234B.

Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal:
The appeal was filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee sought condonation of delay due to being infected with Covid-19 and being quarantined, which delayed the filing of the appeal. The Department opposed the condonation, claiming no reasonable cause. The Tribunal, after considering the circumstances, condoned the delay and proceeded with the appeal.

Addition of Unexplained Money under Section 69A:
The case involved the assessment of cash deposits during demonetization. The Assessing Officer added the entire amount of cash deposited by the assessee, despite the explanation provided that the cash was withdrawn over the past 3-4 years for purchasing a house. The CIT(A) partially allowed the appeal, deleting a portion of the addition. The Tribunal found that the assessee had withdrawn Rs. 16,44,000 and deposited Rs. 10,96,500 for house property investment. The CIT(A) confirmed only 1/3rd of the addition, which the Tribunal deemed unjustified. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the entire addition, as the remaining amount was far below the deposited sum.

Justification of the Assessment Order and Principle of Natural Justice:
The assessee contested the assessment order, claiming it was bad in law and against the principles of natural justice. The Assessing Officer made additions without considering available material or providing adequate opportunity for the assessee to be heard. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal, but the Tribunal found the additions unjustified and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the entire amount added, as the assessee had validly explained the source of the deposited cash.

Charging of Interest under Section 234B:
The assessee disputed the charging of interest under section 234B. The Tribunal did not delve into this issue explicitly in the judgment, as the focus was primarily on the addition of unexplained money and the justification of the assessment order. Therefore, the specific details regarding the charging of interest under section 234B were not addressed in the judgment.

In summary, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, primarily focusing on the addition of unexplained money under section 69A. The Tribunal found the Assessing Officer's and CIT(A)'s decisions to be unjustified, directing the deletion of the entire addition due to the valid explanation provided by the assessee regarding the source of the deposited cash. The Tribunal also addressed the issue of condonation of delay in filing the appeal, ultimately granting the appeal to the assessee.