2017 (7) TMI 205 - AT - Income Tax

Addition on account of cash deposit in bank - Held that - All entries of cash deposit are duly rotated through cashbook and it is duly reflected. However, it appears that the Ld. CIT (A) has not seems to have consider and examined the details as claimed in cashbook. Therefore, the CIT (A) is not justified in allowing credit of ₹ 10 Lakh on account of rotation of cash out of total cash deposit of ₹ 16,34,750/- . Therefore, this limited issue is requires reexamination by the AO. We set-aside the issue to the file of the AO to examine the additional evidence produced and whether entries are duly appearing in cashbook and books of accounts. Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order of CIT (A) regarding addition of cash deposit in bank.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding the addition of ?5,63,981 on account of cash deposit in the bank. The appellant contended that all entries in the cash deposit were proven before the CIT (A). The cash deposits were identified based on AIR information, with total bank deposits amounting to ?36,03,379, including cash deposits of ?16,34,750 and other deposits. Additional evidence was submitted during the appellate proceedings, which were accepted by the CIT (A). While the source of other deposits was acknowledged, the CIT (A) confirmed the addition of ?5,63,981 for the cash deposit of ?16,34,750 after allowing a benefit of rotation of funds to the extent of ?10,00,000.

The appellant argued that all cash deposits and other deposits were part of the business turnover and were reflected in the books of accounts. The appellant contended that the CIT (A) should have accepted the evidence provided and not just allowed a credit of ?10 lakhs while retaining the addition of ?5,63,981. The Tribunal considered the submissions of both parties and observed that all cash deposit entries were properly recorded in the cashbook. However, it was noted that the CIT (A) did not adequately consider the details claimed in the cashbook. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the issue required reexamination by the Assessing Officer (AO) to verify the additional evidence and the entries in the cashbook and books of accounts. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the issue to the file of the AO for a fresh examination, ensuring proper opportunity for the assessee to be heard. The grounds of appeal of the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes, and the appeal was allowed accordingly.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, directing a reexamination of the issue of the addition of cash deposit in the bank by the Assessing Officer based on the additional evidence provided during the appellate proceedings.