2015 (9) TMI 593 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained cash deposits in savings bank account - CIT(A) deleted addition - DR relied upon the orders of AO and submitted that no bill of sale has been produced before the authorities below. Therefore, the assessee could not co-relate the sale with the amount in question - Held that - Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) noted that the assessee has withdrawn the amount of ₹ 10 lakhs each from M/s. Shiv Shankar Mega Mart which was deposited in the savings bank account of the assessee with Axis Bank Ltd. However, no details of the bank account maintained by M/s. Shiv Shankar Mega Mart has been considered and discussed in the appellate order. Copy of the bank account of M/s. Shiv Shankar Mega Mart is also not produced before us for inspection and verification The assessment year in question is 2009-10 and many years have gone now, therefore the assessee must be in a position to produce the sale/purchase bills for verification, that the amount in question is part of the sale proceeds. However, it is admitted fact that sale/purchase bills were never produced before the authorities below as well as before us. Therefore, these two documents are necessary for examination, i.e., bank account of the assessee s proprietary concern M/s. Shiv Shankar Mega Mart as well as the assessee s sale vouchers and produce sufficient material to show that the amount received was part of the sale proceeds. In the absence of these documents on record, we set aside the orders of the authorities below and restore this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with direction to redecide this issue by giving reasonable sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. - Decided in favour of revenue for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
1. Addition of unexplained cash deposits in savings bank account under section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
1. The Assessing Officer added Rs. 20,02,000 as unexplained investment under section 69 due to cash deposits in the bank account. The appellant explained the source as sales proceeds from his proprietorship concern. However, the Assessing Officer found discrepancies in the bank statements, leading to the addition.

2. The appellant contended that the cash deposits were explained as withdrawals from his proprietorship concern and subsequent deposits in his savings account. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) considered this explanation, deleting the substantial addition but confirmed a minor amount due to unexplained discrepancy.

3. The appellate order noted the withdrawals from the proprietorship concern and subsequent cash deposits in the savings account, linking them to business receipts. The Commissioner concluded that the amount deposited was related to business receipts and not unexplained, directing the deletion of the addition.

4. Upon further review, the Appellate Tribunal found discrepancies in the evidence presented. The lack of production of sale/purchase bills and bank account details of the proprietorship concern raised doubts. The Tribunal set aside previous decisions, instructing the Assessing Officer to reexamine the issue with proper evidence.

5. The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal for statistical purposes, emphasizing the necessity of producing essential documents to support claims during assessment proceedings. The decision highlighted the importance of providing concrete evidence to substantiate financial transactions and sources of income.

This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the progression of the case from the initial addition by the Assessing Officer to the final decision by the Appellate Tribunal, emphasizing the significance of presenting accurate documentation and evidence in tax-related matters.