2024 (9) TMI 209 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s. 68 - Cash deposits in bank account - HELD THAT - As noted during assessment proceedings the assessee gave explanation to the AO regarding the nature source of cash deposits i.e. he was a contractor, but before the Ld.CIT(A) he changed his version and came out with collection of money from members of the Parish for allotment of house by Housing Board and that he has returned the sum taken from them after complaints were lodged against him and has filed certain evidence in this behalf which we note the AO had no occasion to examine. Therefore, for the ends of justice and fair play, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) and restore the assessment back to the file of the AO for de novo assessment. Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal, Addition made under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Nature and source of cash deposits, Failure to prove source of deposits, De novo assessment ordered.

Delay in filing appeal:
The appeal was filed with a delay of 24 days, which was condoned by the Appellate Tribunal after considering the affidavit filed by the assessee for condonation of delay.

Addition made under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The main issue was the addition of Rs. 1,03,23,100/- by the Assessing Officer under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The AO noted significant cash deposits in the assessee's bank accounts but found discrepancies in the explanation provided by the assessee regarding the source of the funds.

Nature and source of cash deposits:
The assessee initially claimed to be a contractor in the construction industry but later changed his explanation before the Ld.CIT(A), stating that the cash deposits were collected from parish members for allotment of houses by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, as he was not convinced by the new explanation provided by the assessee.

Failure to prove source of deposits:
The AO disbelieved the assessee's submissions as he failed to provide satisfactory evidence to prove the nature and source of the cash deposits. The assessee's initial explanation was not supported by proper documentation, leading to the addition under section 68 of the Act.

De novo assessment ordered:
The Appellate Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and directed the assessment to be restored back to the AO for de novo assessment. The Tribunal emphasized the need for the assessee to provide relevant documents to prove the nature and source of the deposits, ensuring a fair opportunity for the assessee to present his case.

In conclusion, the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes, and the de novo assessment was ordered to be conducted by the Assessing Officer with proper opportunity given to the assessee to substantiate the source of the cash deposits.