2024 (8) TMI 1075 - AT - Income Tax

Addition of cash deposits by invoking the provisions of Section 68 - assessees could not explain their cases with credible source - HELD THAT - An order 2024 (2) TMI 550 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT passed by Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court was placed on record. It is seen that appeal was filed by both the assessees against the order of the ITAT Ranchi Bench before the Hon'ble Court. The contentions as made before lower authorities were reiterated. The Hon'ble Court which dealt with the matter at length held that both the assessees failed to prove identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the creditors. The contention of the assessee regarding addition made u/s 68 of the Act on the ground that the amounts were not credited in the bank account, the Hon'ble Court has held that there was no error committed by and /or the tax authorities.Both the appeals were, consequently dismissed by the court. Interest charge u/s 234A and 234B - Departmental Miscellaneous applications on deletion of interest charge - HELD THAT - Interest u/s 234AB could be charged on the returned income and not on the assessed income. ITAT has not even considered the provisions of Section 234B, as applicable during the period of AY 2015-16, which is relevant to the instant appeal. The said finding of the Ld. ITAT is totally contrary to the provisions of Section 234B as amended by the Finance Act, 2001 and the Finance Act,2006. Decided in favour of revenue

Summary

Issues:
1. Adjournment request by the assessee for hearing.
2. Deletion of interest charged under sections 234A and 234B.
3. Addition made by the AO in respect of cash deposits invoking section 68 of the Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The judgment addressed the issue of adjournment requests made by the assessee for a hearing. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of expediting pending matters and discouraged the practice of seeking unnecessary adjournments. Citing various court decisions, including Surinder Kaur vs. Tanvir Singh Bal and M/S Shiv Cotex vs. Tirgun Auto Plast P. Ltd., the Tribunal emphasized the need for advocates and chartered accountants to avoid seeking adjournments on flimsy grounds. Consequently, the adjournment application was rejected.

2. The judgment discussed the deletion of interest charged under sections 234A and 234B of the Act. The Department contested the deletion of interest, arguing that the ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal without considering the amended provisions of Section 234B. However, the ITAT directed to delete the interest based on a decision of the Jurisdictional High Court, which held that interest could be charged on the return income, not on the assessed income. The Tribunal carefully considered the grounds of appeal, relevant records, and provisions of the Act before making this decision.

3. The judgment also addressed the addition made by the AO in respect of cash deposits under section 68 of the Act. The assessee claimed that the cash deposits were advance amounts received from a builder for land purchase. However, the AO found discrepancies in the amounts claimed and made additions to the total income of the assessee. Despite the submission of financial statements and bank account details, the ITAT upheld the additions as the assessee failed to substantiate the cash deposits. The Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand also dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee against these additions, emphasizing the failure to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the creditors.

In conclusion, the judgment dismissed the assessee's Miscellaneous Applications while allowing the Departmental Miscellaneous Applications based on the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand. The detailed analysis of each issue provided a comprehensive overview of the Tribunal's findings and the legal principles applied in reaching the decisions.