ITO v. Kamal Kumar Mishra - Taxpublishers.in

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2013 TaxPub(DT) 2139 (Luck-Trib) : (2014) 056 (II) ITCL 0170 : (2013) 143 ITD 0686 Income Tax Act, 1961 --Income from undisclosed Sources -- Addition under section 68 Bank deposits found from bank passbooks--Assessee, an Advocate by profession, had not maintained any books of account for the relevant previous year. Whatever deposits were noticed by the assessing officer, those were from entries in the bank passbooks on different dates. Assessing officer had invoked section 68 for making additions of all the deposits in the bank on different dates after treating them to be unexplained cash credit. *Held:* Was not justified as maintenance of books of account of the assessee, in which credit entry was found, was a condition precedent for invoking section 68. In the present case, the assessee had not maintained any books of account and whatever credit entries were found by the assessing officer, it was from the bank accounts of the assessee in which deposits were made at different point of time. The passbook issued by the bank could not be termed to be an account book of the assessee as per CIT v. Bhaichand N. Gandhi (1982) 11 Taxman 59 (Bom). Therefore, section 68 could not be invoked in this case. More so, the assessee had furnished reasonable and plausible explanations along with confirmation with regard to the different deposits. Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 68 In the ITAT, Lucknow B Bench Sunil Kumar Yadav, J.m. & J. Sudhakar Reddy, A.m. ITO v. Kamal Kumar Mishra IT Appeal No. 398 (Luck.) of 2012 Co. No. 69 (Luck.) of 2012 A.Y. 2009-10 25 April, 2013 Appellant by : Ranu Biswas Respondent by : M. P. Mishra & Shailendra Mishra ORDER *Sunil Kumar Yadav, J.M.* This appeal is preferred by the Revenue against the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) on various grounds, which are as under : 1. The Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition made by assessing officer of Rs. 5,78,900 under section 68 of the Income Tax Act 1961. He failed in appreciate the fact that the assessee failed to prove the identity of the creditors and the genuineness of the transactions. In doing so the Commissioner (Appeals) has overlooked the decisions of Nanak Chandra Laxman Das v. CIT 1983 TaxPub(DT) 574 (All-HC) : (1983) 140 ITR 151 (All.). 2. The Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition made by assessing officer of Rs. 7,89,333 under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. He failed to appreciate the fact that the assessee failed to file any evidence of the source of income of the alleged lenders. Mere confirmation letters or affidavits from the lenders do not save to prove the genuineness of the transaction. In doing so the Commissioner (Appeals) has overlooked the decisions of Nanak Chandra Laxman Das (supra). 3. The Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition made by assessing officer of Rs. 5,80,500 under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. He failed to appreciate the fact that the assessee failed to produce any evidence to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the lender or the genuineness of the transaction. In doina so he failed to anolv the decisions of Nanak Chandra Laxman Das (supra). SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2013 TaxPub(DT) 2139 (Luck-Trib) : (2014) 056 (II) ITCL 0170 : (2013) 143 ITD 0686

Income Tax Act, 1961

--Income from undisclosed Sources -- Addition under section 68 Bank deposits found from bank passbooks--Assessee, an Advocate by profession, had not maintained any books of account for the relevant previous year. Whatever deposits were noticed by the assessing officer, those were from entries in the bank passbooks on different dates. Assessing officer had invoked section 68 for making additions of all the deposits in the bank on different dates after treating them to be unexplained cash credit. Held: Was not justified as maintenance of books of account of the assessee, in which credit entry was found, was a condition precedent for invoking section 68. In the present case, the assessee had not maintained any books of account and whatever credit entries were found by the assessing officer, it was from the bank accounts of the assessee in which deposits were made at different point of time. The passbook issued by the bank could not be termed to be an account book of the assessee as per CIT v. Bhaichand N. Gandhi (1982) 11 Taxman 59 (Bom). Therefore, section 68 could not be invoked in this case. More so, the assessee had furnished reasonable and plausible explanations along with confirmation with regard to the different deposits.

Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 68

In the ITAT, Lucknow B Bench

Sunil Kumar Yadav, J.m. & J. Sudhakar Reddy, A.m.

ITO v. Kamal Kumar Mishra

IT Appeal No. 398 (Luck.) of 2012 Co. No. 69 (Luck.) of 2012

A.Y. 2009-10

25 April, 2013

Appellant by : Ranu Biswas

Respondent by : M. P. Mishra & Shailendra Mishra

ORDER

Sunil Kumar Yadav, J.M.

This appeal is preferred by the Revenue against the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) on various grounds, which are as under :

1. The Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition made by assessing officer of Rs. 5,78,900 under section 68 of the Income Tax Act 1961. He failed in appreciate the fact that the assessee failed to prove the identity of the creditors and the genuineness of the transactions. In doing so the Commissioner (Appeals) has overlooked the decisions of Nanak Chandra Laxman Das v. CIT 1983 TaxPub(DT) 574 (All-HC) : (1983) 140 ITR 151 (All.).

2. The Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition made by assessing officer of Rs. 7,89,333 under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. He failed to appreciate the fact that the assessee failed to file any evidence of the source of income of the alleged lenders. Mere confirmation letters or affidavits from the lenders do not save to prove the genuineness of the transaction. In doing so the Commissioner (Appeals) has overlooked the decisions of Nanak Chandra Laxman Das (supra).

3. The Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition made by assessing officer of Rs. 5,80,500 under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. He failed to appreciate the fact that the assessee failed to produce any evidence to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the lender or the genuineness of the transaction. In doina so he failed to anolv the decisions of Nanak Chandra Laxman Das (supra).