1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Tribunal remands cash deposit issue for reassessment: incorrect calculation, discrepancies, fresh assessment</h1> The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes, remanding the issue of unexplained cash deposits back to the assessing officer for ... - Issues involved: Appeal against addition of cash deposits in bank account u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act.Details of the judgment:1. The assessing officer added an amount of Rs. 30,33,000 as unexplained cash credits under S.68 of the Act, based on deposits in the bank account. The assessee, an individual and Director of a company, explained that the deposits were from earlier withdrawals. However, the CIT(A) rejected this explanation, noting lack of proper reasons for withdrawals and deposits, and absence of maintained books of account. The addition was confirmed, leading to the appeal.2. The assessee contended that the assessing officer's calculation of Rs. 30,33,000 was incorrect, as only Rs. 29,75,000 was deposited in the bank account. Legal principles were cited to argue against the addition under S.68. The Departmental Representative supported the assessing officer's decision, stating inadequate explanation by the assessee.3. The Tribunal found discrepancies in the assessing officer's calculation and lack of consideration for withdrawals from another bank account. The matter should have been remanded for proper examination. The source of deposits needed fresh assessment, including verification of all bank accounts, previous withdrawals, possible expenditures, and any running account in the company. The assessing officer was directed to reevaluate the explanation provided by the assessee and consider all relevant facts before deciding on any warranted addition.4. The appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes, and the issue of unexplained cash deposits was remanded to the assessing officer for reexamination in accordance with the Tribunal's directions.Order pronounced in the Court on 11.1.2013.