The Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-2, Kozhikode v. Leelamma Francis
[Citation -2019-LL-0905-8]

Citation 2019-LL-0905-8
Appellant Name The Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-2, Kozhikode
Respondent Name Leelamma Francis
Court ITAT-Cochin
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 05/09/2019
Assessment Year 2007-08
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags application of income • source of cash • unexplained cash deposit • cash withdrawals • de novo assessment
Bot Summary: The Commissioner of Income Tax erred in treating the cash deposits in bank accounts as explained on the ground that total withdrawals from bank accounts exceed total deposits. The CIT(A) has overlooked that the purpose of withdrawals from bank account has not been explained by the assessee. There are major differences between amounts assessed by the AO with respect to cash deposits in bank accounts and amounts explained by the assessee before the CIT(A). The addition of Rs.1,91,42,820 was made by the A.O. since the assessee did not explain properly the source of cash deposits made in various banks belonging to the assessee and his wife. The assessee had furnished the cash flow statement and details of various fixed deposits, which were closed and utilized for deposits in various bank accounts. On the explanation submitted before the CIT(A), he deleted substantial portion of the addition made by the A.O. We notice that the assessee had furnished detailed explanation through receipt and payment account / cash flow statement before the CIT(A). The assessee is directed to furnish proper explanation with regard to the source of deposits in various bank accounts amounting to Rs.1,91,42,480.


IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Chandra Poojari, AM & Shri George George K, JM ITA No.448/Coch/2019 : Asst.Year 2007-2008 Asst.Commissioner of Smt.Leelamma Francis Income-tax, Central Circle 2 Vs. Donum Dei Kozhikode. Nellikode Housing Colony Chevayoor P.O. Kozhikode 673007. PAN : AEDPM3478A. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri. Santham Bose Respondent by : Sri. C.B.M.Warrier Date of Date of Hearing : 05.09.2019 Pronouncement : 05.09.2019 ORDER Per George George K., JM This appeal at instance of Department is directed against CIT(A) s order dated 20.02.2019. relevant assessment year is 2007-2008. 2. grounds raised read as follows:- 1. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in treating cash deposits in bank accounts (Assessed at Rs. 1,91,42,480) as explained on ground that total withdrawals from bank accounts exceed total deposits. 2. CIT(A) has overlooked that purpose of withdrawals from bank account has not been explained by assessee. It is not credible that assessee merely withdraws amounts from bank to deposit same back. 3. There are major differences between amounts assessed by AO with respect to cash deposits in bank accounts and amounts explained by assessee before CIT(A). CIT(A) did not afford opportunity to AO to analyze 2 ITA No.448/Coch/2019. Smt.Leelamma Francis. fresh claims made by assessee and to verify fresh facts presented before CIT(A). 4. CIT(A) erred in allowing cash of Rs.21,98,658, deposited in SBT Main SB 607 A/c as source for expenses. In CIT(A)'s order, page 8, paragraph 13.1, it is stated this amount is cash deposit in SB Ale No.607. Therefore, this amount is application of income and not source. 3. At very outset, we noticed that identical issue was considered by Tribunal in ITA No.292/Coch/2018 vide order dated 19.03.2019, in hands of assessee s husband Sri.M.T.Francis. Tribunal in case of assessee s husband (supra), had allowed Department s appeal for statistical purposes. In other words, issue was restored to Assessing Officer for de novo consideration. relevant finding of Tribunal in case of ACIT v. Sri.M.T.Francis (assessee s husband), reads as follow:- 6. We have heard rival submissions and perused material on record. addition of Rs.1,91,42,820 was made by A.O. since assessee did not explain properly source of cash deposits made in various banks belonging to assessee and his wife. It is also admitted fact that many of these deposits taken as cash deposits by A.O. are not cash deposits but are bank transfers. However, we noticed from assessment order that there was no explanation offered by assessee. Before CIT(A), assessee had furnished cash flow statement and details of various fixed deposits, which were closed and utilized for deposits in various bank accounts. On explanation submitted before CIT(A), he deleted substantial portion of addition made by A.O. We notice that assessee had furnished detailed explanation through receipt and payment account / cash flow statement before CIT(A). CIT(A) did not grant opportunity to Assessing Officer to analyse fresh evidence produced him. This action of CIT(A) is in clear violation of provisions of Rule 46A of Income-tax Rules, 1962. Therefore, we are of view that matter needs to be restored to A.O. for de novo consideration. Accordingly, we restore case to Assessing Officer. assessee is directed to furnish proper 3 ITA No.448/Coch/2019. Smt.Leelamma Francis. explanation with regard to source of deposits in various banks amounting to Rs.1,91,42,480. It is ordered accordingly. 4. Since both parties have agreed that issue raised in this appeal is identical to issue raised in case of assessee s husband (supra), which was disposed of by Tribunal, we restore this case also to Assessing Officer for de novo consideration. assessee is directed to furnish proper explanation with regard to source of deposits in various bank accounts amounting to Rs.1,91,42,480. It is ordered accordingly. 5. In result, appeal filed by Department is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 05th day of September, 2019. Sd/- Sd/- (Chandra Poojari) (George George K.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cochin ; Dated : 05th September, 2019. Devdas* Copy of Order forwarded to : 1. Appellant 2. Respondent. 3. CIT (Central), Kochi 4. CIT(A)-III, Kochi. 5. DR, ITAT, Cochin. 6. Guard file. BY ORDER, AR-ITAT- Cochin Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-2, Kozhikode v. Leelamma Franci
Report Error