BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No.378/Del/2021
Assessment Year: 2017-18
Raj Kumar, 65/1, Madhu Kunj, Laxmi Road, Dalanwala, Dehradun, Uttarakhand-248003
Vs.
The ACIT, Central Circle-06, New Delhi 110055
PAN AASPK 7279 H
(Appellant) (Respondent)
For Assessee: Shri Rajat Jain, CA, Shri Akshat Jain, CA
For Revenue: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Date of Hearing: 10.05.2023
Date of Pronouncement: 24.05.2023
PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, J.M.:
This appeal has been filed against the order of CIT(A)-24, New Delhi, dated 09.02.2021 for AY 2017-18.
2. Addition Under Section 69A
The sole and main ground of the assessee in this appeal is that the Assessing Officer as well as ld. CIT(A) was not correct and justified in making and confirming the addition of Rs. 35 lakh u/s. 69A of the Act, on account of cash deposit made during the demonetization period.
The learned counsel drew our attention towards written submissions/reply dated 06.12.2019 filed on 09.12.2019 during the course of assessment proceedings. The submissions included a detailed cash flow statement for FY 2011-12 to 2016-17 and details of month-wise cash deposits from 01.04.2015 to 08.11.2016. It was clear that on 08.11.2016, the assessee had a closing cash balance of Rs. 43,22,366/-. Therefore, the amount of Rs. 35 lakh deposited by the assessee was much less than the cash in hand, and no addition was called for. The counsel also referred to wealth tax returns and computation of statements showing a cash balance of Rs. 43,87,091/- as on 31.03.2011, which was carried forward to 01.04.2011 for AY 2012-13.
3. Revenue’s Argument
Replying to the above, the learned Senior DR supported the orders of the authorities below. He pointed out that there was no justification provided by the assessee for not depositing the cash from 09.11.2016 to 21.12.2016, and the wealth tax return was not reliable to show the cash balance as on 01.04.2011.
4. Tribunal’s Decision
On careful consideration, it is undisputed that the assessee filed written submissions on 09.12.2019. However, the Assessing Officer did not adjudicate on the said submission, and the ld. CIT(A) dismissed it by pointing out minor defects. The wealth tax returns and computations, which are public documents, were dismissed by the ld. CIT(A).
The Assessing Officer made an identical addition of Rs. 35 lakh for AY 2016-17, which was deleted by the ld. CIT(A) by order dated 07.08.2019. The wealth tax computation showed a cash balance of Rs. 43,87,091/- as on 31.03.2011, taken into consideration while preparing the cash flow from FY 2011-12 to 2016-17. The Senior DR did not controvert this factual finding. Therefore, the delay in deposit cannot raise any doubt against the assessee.
Accordingly, the sole grievance of the assessee is allowed, and the Assessing Officer is directed to delete the addition.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 24.05.2023.
Sd/- (CHANDRA MOHAN GARG) JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated: 24th May, 2023.
NV/-
Copy forwarded to:
// By Order //
Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi
Raj Kumar vs. ACIT, Central Circle-06, New Delhi – ITA 378/DEL/2021
Manage the increasing number of hearings effortlessly by leveraging the legal AI revolution We are India's Leading revolutionary AI-powered legal platform where you can get enough insights into top cases and judgements.
Research Platform