2023 (7) TMI 169 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 68 - unexplained credits - contention of the assessee has been rejected on the ground that the assessee has repeated the same figures for subsequent A.Y 2017-18 - HELD THAT - Accountant of the assessee had taken the figure from the last year resulting into the repetition of the said mistake. Considering the above contentions of the assessee, the matter is restored to the file of the AO with a direction to adopt the correct figure of Rs. 96,00,000/- on account of FDR deposits in Bank of Maharashtra instead of Rs. 9,60,00,000/- as wrongly mentioned in the balance sheet by the accountant of the assessee. We direct the AO to consider the revised balance sheet of the assessee and assess the income of the assessee for A.Y 2016-17 accordingly, subject to the condition that the assessee has mentioned the correct figures in the subsequent assessment years i.e. A.Y 2018-19 and onwards and the assessee has not taken benefit of his own wrong. Appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues involved:
The sole issue raised in this appeal is the addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 8,04,17,440/- u/s 68 of the Act on account of unexplained credits shown in the balance sheet of the assessee.

Summary:

Issue 1: Addition made by the Assessing Officer

The assessee appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre regarding the addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee explained that the accountant mistakenly mentioned the bank deposit figure at Rs. 9,60,00,000/- instead of Rs. 96,00,000/-. The revised balance sheet showed the correct bank balance inherited by the assessee. The Assessing Officer did not accept the explanation and observed that the assessee repeated the same figures in the subsequent year's tax return. The counsel for the assessee clarified that the accountant took the figure from the previous year, leading to the repetition of the mistake. The Tribunal considered the submissions and directed the Assessing Officer to adopt the correct figure of Rs. 96,00,000/- for the FDR deposits in the Bank of Maharashtra. The Assessing Officer was instructed to assess the income of the assessee for the relevant year based on the revised balance sheet, ensuring that correct figures are maintained in subsequent assessment years and the assessee does not benefit from the error.

This judgment highlights the importance of accurate financial reporting and the need for Assessing Officers to consider genuine explanations provided by taxpayers. The Tribunal's decision to rectify the error in the balance sheet and direct the Assessing Officer to reassess the income based on correct figures demonstrates a fair and just approach to tax matters.