TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (2) TMI 424
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Year 2009-10. 2. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us. "1. That the order of the Ld. Income Tax Officer is wrong, illegal and against facts. Likewise CIT(A) is not justified while confirming the same. 2. That the assessee was person not residing in India, the Ld. AO grossly erred in assessing the saving bank account deposits amounting to Rs. 12,13,7002- with ICICI Bank, Tam Taran as his income whereas the said deposits were made by assessee in his own account out of the agricultural activities held in India being the owner of agricultural land. 3. That no service of notice u/s 148 and 142(1) was ever effected on the appellant and such proceedings initiated and assessment completed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 8,53,720/-. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). However, not finding any infirmity in the view taken by the AO the CIT(A) upheld his order and dismissed the appeal. 6. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. 7. At the very outset, the ld.Authorized Representative (for short "AR") for the assessee submitted that the addition of the cash deposited in the bank account by the AO u/s. 68 of the Act could not be sustained in the eyes of law. Elaborating on his aforesaid contention, it was submitted by the ld.AR that as the provisions of Section 68 of the Act can be invoked only qua any sum found credited in the "books of an assessee maintained....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....k account or bank passbook of an assessee cannot be held as his 'books of account', hence, no addition in respect of a simpliciter cash deposit made in the said account could validly be made under Sec.68 of the Act. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Bhaichand H. Gandhi (1983) 143 ITR 67 (Bom.). We find that a similar view had been arrived at by a coordinate bench of the Tribunal, viz. ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Mehul V. Vyas Vs. ITO (2017) 764 ITD 296 (Mum), wherein it was observed as under: "8. We have heard the ld. Authorized representatives of both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities as well as the material produced before us. We ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ses a credit of the aforesaid amount in the 'books of an assessee' maintained for the previous year. We not being oblivious of the settled position of law that a statutory provision has to be strictly construed and interpreted as per its plain literal interpretation, and no word howsoever meaningful it may so appear can be allowed to be read into a statutory provision in the garb of giving effect to the underlying intent of the legislature, thus confining ourselves within the realm of our jurisdiction, therein construe the scope and gamut of the aforesaid statutory provision by according a plain meaning to the language used in Sec. 68. We are of the considered view that a credit in the 'bank account' of an assessee cannot be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....It is not as if the pass book is maintained by the bank as the agent of the constituent, nor can it be said that the pass book is maintained by the bank under the instructions of the constituent. In view of this, the Tribunal was, with respect, justified in holding that the pass book supplied by the bank to the assessee in the present case could not be regarded as a book of the assessee, that is, a book maintained by the assessee or under his instructions. In our view, the Tribunal was justified in the conclusions at which it arrived." We find that the aforesaid view of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court had thereafter been followed by a 'SMC' of the ITAT Mumbai bench in the case of Smt. Manshi Mahendra Pitkar Vs. ITO 1(2),....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent cannot be construed to be a book maintained by the assessee for any previous year as understood for the purposes of section 68 of the Act. Therefore, on this account itself the impugned addition deserves to be deleted. I hold so." We further find that a similar view had also been arrived at in a 'third member' decision of the Tribunal in the case of Smt. Madhu Raitani Vs. ACIT (2011) 10 taxmann.com 206 (Gauhati) (TM), as well as by a coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO, Barabanki Vs. Kamal Kumar Mishra (2013) 33 taxamann.com 610 (Lucknow Trib.). Thus in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts of the case read in light of the settled position of law, we are of the considered view that the addition made by the A.O in....