TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1048
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the assessee which was substantiated by documentary evidences that were disregarded by Ld. AO as well as Ld. CIT(Appeals), hence, it is prayed that the addition of Rs. 11,59,670/- confirmed by the Learned CIT (Appeal) may kindly be deleted. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned AO has erred on facts and in law in making addition of Rs. 9,600/-by denying exemption under the head "Income from Salary" on account of Transport Allowance and the Learned CIT (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has erred in confirming the same as the addition is contrary to facts, law and legislative intent inasmuch as the claim was well within the limit prescribed u/s 10(14)(ii) disregarding the documentary evidences submitted in support of the aforesaid claim made by the assessee, hence, it is prayed that the disallowance of Rs. 9,600/- confirmed by the Learned CIT (Appeal) may kindly be deleted. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned AO has erred on facts and in law in making addition of Rs. 32,385/- by denying exemption under the head "Income from Salary" on account of House Rent Allowance and the Learned CIT (Appeals....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....irm M/s Gulab Thakur Fuel Station (Pan AAKFG5685M) and received salary from M/s Vicon Motor Cycle & M/s Scooter India Pvt. Ltd. He was also doing business of Sales & Purchases of Second Hand Vehicles. Further, it was stated that during the year under consideration two Bank Accounts were maintained by the assessee one as Single holder A/c in SBI and another Joint holder A/c in Oriental Bank of Commerce at Tatibandh Branch, Raipur. It is also stated by the assessee that during F.Y. 2012-13 Cash of Rs. 34,79,000/- was deposited in the joint Bank Account in Oriental Bank of Commerce and the cash was deposited in Oriental Bank of Commerce on different dates by making withdrawals from the firm's Account and having own cash by all the three partners. Copy of Audited balance sheet, Profit & loss A/c along with copy of Form No.16 issued by M/s Motor Cycle & Scooter India Pvt. Ltd & computation of income. 4. Since no return of income for F.Y. 2013-14 was filed, therefore, notice u/s 142(1) dated 20.08.2021 by fixing the proceedings for 25.08.2021 was issued by the calling the following information:- "please refer to your reply filed on 20.04.2021 in respect of pending Asstt. Proceed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... & Gain from Business is assessed at Rs. 334038+277735-Rs. 611773/- (Add: Rs. 6,11,773/-) Ill) Further assessee has claimed Interest on FDR Rs. 803/- under the head Income from other sources. The same is assessed at Rs. 803/-. (Add: Rs. 803/-) iv) Vide reply filed on 05.04.2021 in respect of Cash deposits made during F.Y. 2012-13 in Oriental Bank Of Commerce as a joint Account holder is reproduced as under:- "Quas-4- Source of cash deposits in bank account made during the year along with documentary evidence. Response-Cash deposits in bank account made during the year along with documentary evidence. During the year cash has been deposited in JOINT saving account number 14342011014335 held in the name of partners of M/s Gulab Thakur Fuel Station namely- 1. Janak Singh Thakur 2. Arvind Singh Thakur 3. Raghavendra Singh Thakur Cash deposit details along with source there of Date of deposit Cash deposit value Source Proof of Source Utilization of cash deposit 12-05-2012 9,00,000/- Own cash in hand of Rs. 3 lakhs of each of three partners Audited balance sheet of the firm a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncome for the relevant previous year. The case of the appellant is therefore re-opened u/s 147 of the I.T. Act by issue of notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act. The appellant failed to file return of income even in response to notice issued u/s 148 of the I.T. Act. In response to notice issued u/s 142(1) of the I.T. Act appellant submitted that the said cash deposit of Rs. 34,79,000/- on different dates was by making withdrawals from the firm's account and having own cash by all the partners. This submission filed by the appellant was not found satisfactory to the AO. Since the said bank account is a joint account of the appellant with other two individuals, the: AO made addition of Rs. 11.59,670 being 1/3rd of the total cash deposits of Rs. 34.79.000/ in the said bank account 5.1 During appellate proceedings also the appellant also made same written submission as submitted before the AO. Appellant also filed copies of bank statement and partnership deed in support of submission made. The written submission and documentary evidences provided by the appellant have been carefully perused and considered. 5.2 The first cash deposit of Rs. 9,00,000/- was made on 12.05.20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ore concur with the view of the AO that the nature and source of this cash deposits also remained unexplained. The addition of Rs 11,59,8707 made by the AO in the Impugned assessment order is therefore upheld. The ground of appeal raised by the appellant thus stand dismissed." 5. At the outset, on this issue, it is noted that the AO had made addition u/s. 69 of the Act which refers to unexplained investment. However, in this case, the assessee had neither purchased nor sold any moveable or immoveable property, nor had invested in any such property. In fact, the verification of facts as emanating from the assessment order as well as the findings of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC all pertains to and revolves on un-explained cash deposits by the assessee which resulted in addition of 1/3 of the total deposit since the account was in the name of three persons, including the assessee, so as per his share 1/3 of the said deposit was added as the assessee was unable to prove the nature and source of such cash deposit. In this periphery of investigation and addition made by the department, the correct provision of law to have been applied is Section 69A of the Act, which deals with unexplained mon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fully following the proposition rendered by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Allahabad in the case of Sarika Jain (supra). I have no hesitation to hold that the addition made by the AO by mentioning incorrect and irrelevant charging section is not sustainable and valid being bad in law. Accordingly, grounds of assessee are allowed and AO is directed to delete the entire addition. 15. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed." 6. Similarly, in the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Smt. Sarika Jain Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bareilly and Another, reported in (2018) 407 ITR 254 (All) which decision was referred to and applied in the earlier decision of the Coordinate Bench of Delhi (supra), the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad held as follows: "In the present case, it is apparent that the subject matter of the dispute all through before the Tribunal in appeal was only with regard to the addition of alleged amount of the gift received by the appellant-assessee as his personal income under Section 68 of the Act and not whether such an addition can be made under Section 69-A of the Act. In view of the abov....