2017 (3) TMI 797 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of cash deposit in the bank - assessee failed to furnish the necessary details to the AO at the time of assessment with regard to the source of cash - Held that - As at the time of appellate stage we find that sufficient information with regard to the source of cash deposited with the bank was explained by the assessee However, we also find that the AO in the remand report has clearly stated the jeweler to whom the assessee has sold her jewelleries was not traceable. Similarly, the parties who have given loan to the assessee failed to appear before the AO. But in our view sufficient details were furnished by the assessee with regard to the jeweler as it was registered with the Sales Tax Department and no verification with the sales tax department was carried out. But the lower authorities had not brought anything on record that the jeweler was not in existence at the relevant time when the jewellery was sold. Similarly, in our view considered view that the additions cannot be sustained in the hands of the assessee just the parties failed to appear before the AO. - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Admitting additional evidence in contravention to Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules, 1962.

Analysis:
1. The appeal by the Revenue contested the admission of additional evidence by the ld. CIT(A) against Rule 46A. The assessee, an individual, declared a total income of ?2,21,200. The AO noted a cash deposit of ?36,55,675 in the bank account, which the assessee failed to explain satisfactorily, leading to it being treated as income.

2. The assessee contended before the ld. CIT(A) that the cash deposits were from the sale of jewellery received as gifts, loans from relatives, and cash withdrawals. The ld. CIT(A) reviewed submissions, cash flow statements, and supporting documents. The AO's remand report mentioned the jeweler and parties were not traceable, but the assessee provided details, including sales receipts and loan confirmation. The ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition, finding the cash deposits were explained and verified.

3. The ITAT considered the AO's disallowance of cash deposits, noting the explanations provided by the assessee during the appellate stage. Details included opening balances, jewellery sales, loans from known parties, income earned, and cash flow statements. Although the jeweler and loan parties were not physically present, the ITAT found the explanations credible and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, stating the additions were not sustainable solely on non-appearance of parties.

4. The ITAT upheld the ld. CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the assessee adequately explained the sources of cash deposits, including jewellery sales and loans, despite the absence of physical verification of the jeweler and loan parties. The ITAT found no fault in the ld. CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the deletion of the addition.

5. In conclusion, the Revenue's appeal challenging the admission of additional evidence contrary to Rule 46A was dismissed by the ITAT. The ITAT upheld the ld. CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of unexplained cash deposits, as the assessee provided satisfactory explanations and supporting documentation, despite the non-appearance of certain parties during assessment proceedings.