2020 (11) TMI 909 - AT - Income Tax

Challenge to Income Tax Notice and Addition under sec. 69A Resolved in Favor of Assessee

Sayar Devi Baid Versus ITO Ward-56 (3) New Delhi.

The appellant challenged the validity of the notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, citing vague reasons and lack of tangible material. Despite raising ... Addition u/s 69A - unexplained money - HELD THAT:- AO has accepted the return of the assessee thereby accepting the turn over from the sales of papad and snacks. It is the say that counsel for the assessee has been doing this business since past many years and therefore had sufficient funds to explain the source of cash deposit. Per contra the DR strongly supported the findings of the lower authorities - once the business of the assessee has been accepted by the AO by accepting her return of income there should not be any doubt in accepting the source of cash deposit. Assessee has successfully explained the source of cash deposit of ₹ 10 lacs. We accordingly direct the AO to delete the impugned addition. The appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Issues involved:1. Validity of notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act.2. Addition of Rs. 10,00,000 as unexplained money under sec. 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.3. Appreciation of documentary evidences in support of cash deposits.4. Acceptance of returned income and justification for further addition.Validity of notice u/s 148:The appellant challenged the validity of the notice u/s 148, arguing that the reasons recorded were vague and lacked tangible material. The appellant contended that the notice was based on AIR information without independent investigation, rendering it illegal. The absence of proper approval under section 151 of the Act was also raised as a jurisdictional issue. However, the Counsel for the assessee later withdrew this ground, leading to its dismissal.Addition under sec. 69A:The case revolved around the addition of Rs. 10,00,000 as unexplained money under sec. 69A of the Act. The AO, based on information about cash deposits, disbelieved the assessee's explanation regarding the source of the deposit. The CIT(A) upheld this addition. The assessee argued that since the AO accepted the business turnover from sales of papad and snacks, the source of the cash deposit should also be accepted. Reference was made to a similar decision by a coordinate bench, where the Tribunal accepted the return of income as business income, leading to the deletion of the impugned addition. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 10,00,000, allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.Appreciation of documentary evidences:The CIT(A) was criticized for not appreciating the documentary evidences supporting the cash deposits, which were deemed vital for adjudication. The failure to consider these evidences was seen as a denial of proper and reasonable opportunity for the assessee to present their case effectively. The importance of these evidences in resolving the issue under sec. 69A was emphasized, with the assertion that they directly impacted the dispute, necessitating their proper consideration for the sake of justice and fair adjudication.Acceptance of returned income and further addition:The AO's acceptance of the returned income, which corroborated the cash deposits, was highlighted as a key argument by the assessee. It was contended that since the business had been accepted, there was no basis for the additional Rs. 10,00,000 addition, which was already part of the declared turnover. Drawing parallels with a previous Tribunal decision, the assessee successfully argued that the source of the cash deposit had been adequately explained, leading to the deletion of the impugned addition. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the AO to remove the disputed addition, thereby ruling in favor of the assessee.This detailed analysis of the legal judgment covers the various issues involved in the case, providing a comprehensive understanding of the arguments presented and the final decision rendered by the Tribunal.