2022 (1) TMI 87 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 68 - assessee was doing share trading business and the cash was deposited/withdrawn for the business. The peak credit only can be added, in place of total cash deposited in Bank A/c. - HELD THAT - At the time of hearing and after going through the order of the CIT(A), it emerges that the details of IPOs were not produced before the CIT(A) and before the Assessing Officer. The cash deposits and its source as well as related supporting evidences were not produced by the assessee before the Assessing Officer as well as before the CIT(A). The assessee has filed additional evidence before us. Therefore, it will be appropriate to remand back the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication of the additional evidence produced before us along with details of IPOs. After verification of the source of cash deposit as well as the genuineness of the transactions, the Assessing Officer may decide the case of the assessee as per the due process of law.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without following proper procedure.
2. Addition of cash deposits in the bank account under Section 68 of the Act.
3. Jurisdictional issue related to the transfer of the case from one Assessing Officer to another.
4. Treatment of cash deposits in the bank account in the context of share trading business.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the order passed by the CIT(A) for the Assessment Year 2008-09. The grounds of appeal included the contention that the procedure laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts was not followed in reopening the assessment under Section 147. Additionally, it was argued that the approval under Section 151 of the IT Act for reopening the assessment was not legally valid. The Assessing Officer had reopened the case based on information about cash deposits in the bank account, and despite various notices issued, the assessee did not respond. The Assessing Officer proceeded under Section 144, making an addition of the cash deposits as unexplained income under Section 68.

2. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, leading to further arguments before the ITAT. The appellant contended that the assessment was without jurisdiction due to the transfer of the case from one Assessing Officer to another without the assessee's consent. It was also argued that in a share trading business, only the peak credit entry should be added instead of the total cash deposit in the bank account. The appellant highlighted the lack of verification of evidence by the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) due to the absence of maintained books of accounts.

3. During the proceedings, the appellant submitted that the source of cash deposits was explained through IPO transactions reflected in the bank statement. The ITAT observed that the details of IPOs and supporting evidence were not produced before the authorities. Consequently, the case was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication of the additional evidence and IPO details. The ITAT emphasized the need for verification of the source of cash deposits and the genuineness of transactions before deciding the case.

4. The ITAT dismissed certain grounds while partly allowing others for statistical purposes. The jurisdictional issue related to the transfer of the case was deemed properly done by the Revenue Authorities. The consequential ground regarding the treatment of cash deposits in the context of share trading business was partly allowed. Ultimately, the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed for statistical purposes, with the order pronounced in open court.