9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (12) TMI 502 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 68 - cash deposits in bank account - whether Assessee had failed to discharge its initial onus to prove the genuineness of source of cash deposited in the bank during the course of assessment proceedings? - HELD THAT - In the present Assessment Year i.e. 2012-13, the Original return of income filed u/s 139(1) on 30.09.2012 declaring income of ₹ 5,10,548/-. The revised return was filed u/s 139(5) on 10.02.2013. The notice u/s 143(2)/148(1) was issued on 30.03.2013. Thus, the assessee filed its revised return of income prior to issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act which is within the prescribed time limit as per Section 139(5). The assessee revised its return of income on 12 February 2013 declaring wherein the income which was not disclosed in the original return of income. Thus the total income was revised at ₹ 15,50,213/- declaring the additional commission income of ₹ 10,39,665. The assessment was not framed by the time assessee revised its return of income. Therefore, the revised return filed by the assessee is within the time allowed u/s 139 (5) of the Act. Neither the assessee nor the CIT (A) has held that the revised return filed by the assessee is not bona fide and is not on account of any error or omission in the return of income filed originally. Therefore, the revised return filed by the assessee has to be accepted which was done in earlier year i.e. A.Y. 2011-12. The Ld. DR could not point out any distinguishing facts. Therefore, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of deleting the addition of ?10,39,66,491/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Compliance with Section 68 and Rule 46-A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 3. Opportunity for the Assessing Officer to be heard. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of Deleting the Addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The primary issue revolves around whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] was justified in deleting the addition of ?10,39,66,491/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer had added this amount on account of cash deposits in the assessee's undisclosed bank account, which were not reflected in the regular books of accounts. The Tribunal noted that the facts of the present assessment year were identical to those of the previous year (A.Y. 2011-12), where a similar issue was decided in favor of the assessee. The Tribunal observed that the revised return filed by the assessee, which included additional commission income, was within the time allowed under Section 139(5) of the Act. Hence, the revised return was valid and had to be accepted. Consequently, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order deleting the addition. 2. Compliance with Section 68 and Rule 46-A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962: The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) ignored the provisions of Section 68 and Rule 46-A, which govern the conditions under which additional evidence can be admitted during appellate proceedings. The Tribunal, however, noted that the CIT(A) had upheld the addition under Section 68 based on the peak balance in the bank account, and there was no indication that additional evidence had been admitted in violation of Rule 46-A. The Tribunal emphasized that the income tax is a tax on real income and not on turnover, and the CIT(A) had considered the nature and frequency of cash deposits, which were made in smaller amounts from different parts of the country, and subsequent cheque payments from the same bank account. 3. Opportunity for the Assessing Officer to be Heard: The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) did not provide an opportunity for the Assessing Officer to be heard regarding the additional evidence submitted by the assessee. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not relied on any additional evidence that required such an opportunity. The Tribunal also noted that the Director of the assessee company had been examined, and his statement was recorded, providing sufficient information about the cash deposits and the nature of the business. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed this ground of appeal as well. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the revised return filed by the assessee was within the permissible time limit and had to be accepted. The CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of ?10,39,66,491/- was justified, as it was based on a thorough examination of the facts and compliance with the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act and Rules. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, and the order pronounced in the open court confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision. Order Pronouncement: The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, and the order was pronounced in the open court on November 15, 2021.
|
