2023 (5) TMI 680 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained Money u/s 69A - Cash Deposits in the Bank Account of the Firm - Addition based upon AIR Information received - HELD THAT - Assessee had stated that the firm had deposited a sum of Rs.6,60,000/- in the bank account of the assessee however, the AO took it as Rs.6,10,000/-. Secondly, the AO did not take note of cash withdrawals of Rs.19,55,000/- by the assessee during the Assessment Year. This submission of the assessee is not adverted by CIT(A). Assessee had given a plausible explanation to the lower authority. We find merit into the contention of the assessee that if the gross receipts are taken at Rs.17,82,469/- but not at Rs.24,96,217/- after giving effect to the reversal entry of Rs.7,13,748/- as reflected in the Form 26AS. The income of the assessee firm would be at Rs.1,42,598/- if computed @ 8% of the contractual receipts on the presumptive basis. Hence, impugned addition as made by the AO and sustained by the Ld.CIT(A) is unjustified and deserves to be deleted. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of additions made by the Assessing Officer under section 144 read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Validity of notice served under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Provision of reasons for opening assessment proceedings, providing copies of AIR Information, and ensuring reasonable opportunities for the appellant.
4. Treatment of cash deposits in the bank account of the firm as unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
5. Adjudication of the difference between two amounts of contractual receipts.
6. Disallowance of TDS credit to the appellant reflected in Form-26AS.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the additions of INR 8,09,697 made by the Assessing Officer under sections 144 and 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant disputed the validity of the additions, arguing that the order upholding them was bad in law due to lack of proper service of notices and failure to provide reasons for opening the assessment proceedings under section 148.
2. The appellant contended that the Assessing Officer erred in treating cash deposits of INR 6,10,000 in the firm's bank account as unexplained money under section 69A. The appellant provided explanations regarding the source of the deposits, linking them to cash withdrawals from the same account during the normal course of business.
3. The issue of the difference between two amounts of contractual receipts was raised, with the appellant arguing that the Assessing Officer solely relied on AIR Information without considering Form-26AS. The appellant highlighted a significant difference between the two amounts and provided explanations for the variance, which the authorities failed to consider adequately.
4. The appellant also challenged the disallowance of a TDS credit of INR 66,511 reflected in Form-26AS. The appellant argued that this credit was legitimate and should have been considered while framing the assessment order.
5. Upon hearing the arguments, the Tribunal found merit in the appellant's contentions. It noted discrepancies in the Assessing Officer's approach, especially regarding the treatment of cash deposits and the difference in contractual receipts. The Tribunal concluded that the impugned additions were unjustified and ordered their deletion, allowing the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant.
6. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, overturning the order of the lower authorities and deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer. The judgment emphasized the importance of providing a fair opportunity to present the case and ensuring that assessments are conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

← Previous Next →