2023 (7) TMI 744 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - validity of approval granted by the CIT u/s. 151(1) - Addition on account of cash deposit in bank - unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 - HELD THAT - A.O at the stage of initiating proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act had acted upon the ITS (Individual Transaction Statement) of the assessee as was available before him, as per which, cash deposits were made in her bank account during the year under consideration, therefore, he had sufficient material before him to arrive at a bonafide believe that income of the assessee chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. Thus, the additional grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations. Cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee were sourced out of the withdrawals made by her from the amount of Meher which was received by her at the time of her marriage and was credited in her bank account; as well as out of the personal savings that were accumulated by her over the years - As the assessee had neither before the lower authorities nor before us been able to successfully establish that the cash withdrawals made from her bank account were utilized for redepositing the same, therefore, her said claim cannot be fully accepted. Apart from that, a perusal of the bank account of the assessee in no way establishes an inextricable nexus between the cash withdrawals and cash deposits made in her bank account which would have otherwise fortified her aforesaid claim. Although, we find no logic or reasoning in the aforesaid claim of the Ld. AR, for the reason that it is incomprehensible that an assessee would have withdrawn amounts and thereafter redeposited the same in her bank account, but at the same time cannot remain oblivion of the substantial amount of cash that was available with the assessee out of the cash withdrawals made by her over the year. We find substance in the claim of assessee would have been in possession of certain cash in hand sourced out of the substantial amount of cash withdrawals made during the year under consideration; as well as her accumulated savings of the past years. Thus availability of cash of Rs. 1,00,000/- with the assessee can safely be held to have been sourced out of her past savings and cash withdrawals during the year, and the same would fairly take care of the aforesaid claim of the Ld. AR. We, thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations vacate the addition made by the A.O to the extent of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Assessee appeal partly allowed.

Summary

Issues:
The appeal involves challenges to the addition of cash deposits in the bank account by the Assessing Officer, validity of jurisdiction assumed by the AO, and the approval granted by the Pr. CIT under section 151(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Challenge 1: Addition of Cash Deposits
The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 10,01,500 on account of cash deposit in the bank, which was upheld by the CIT(A). The appellant contended that the addition was unjustified and should be deleted.

Challenge 2: Validity of Jurisdiction
The appellant raised concerns regarding the validity of jurisdiction assumed by the AO under section 147 of the Act. It was argued that the proceedings were initiated based on incorrect facts, and the approval granted by the Pr. CIT lacked proper application of mind.

Challenge 3: Merits of the Case
The appellant claimed that the cash deposits were sourced from withdrawals made for 'Meher' received at the time of marriage and personal savings. However, the connection between the withdrawals and deposits was not adequately established. The appellant argued that the cash in hand was sourced from past savings and withdrawals, justifying a partial vacation of the addition made by the AO.

The case involved the reopening of the assessee's case due to cash deposits in the bank account without filing a return of income. The Assessing Officer held the cash deposits as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. Despite an appeal to the CIT(A), the decision was upheld, leading to the current appeal.

During the proceedings, the appellant's Authorized Representative contested the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the AO and the approval granted by the Pr. CIT. The argument was based on the incorrect factual basis for initiating proceedings under section 147 of the Act, which was deemed unsustainable.

On the merits of the case, the appellant claimed that the cash deposits were sourced from marriage-related funds and personal savings. However, the connection between withdrawals and deposits was not convincingly established. The Tribunal found merit in the argument that the cash in hand could be attributed to past savings and withdrawals, leading to a partial vacation of the addition made by the AO.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal based on the observations made regarding the source of cash deposits and the lack of a strong nexus between withdrawals and deposits. The decision was pronounced on July 14, 2023.