Tinku Wines Vs ITO (ITAT Chandigarh)
Chandigarh ITAT: Same Cash Deposits Cannot Be Taxed Twice Merely Because They Are Reflected Under Different PANs; AO Directed to Verify Before Invoking Section 69A
The Chandigarh ITAT set aside the addition of ₹1.20 crore made under Section 69A in respect of cash deposits during the demonetisation period and held that the same cash deposits cannot be brought to tax twice merely because they are reflected under different PANs. Where the assessee claims that the deposits have already been disclosed and examined under another PAN, the Assessing Officer must verify the records of all the concerned PANs before making an addition.
The assessee, a partnership firm engaged in the retail liquor business, explained that due to changes in the constitution of the firm, multiple PANs came to be used inadvertently, resulting in cash deposits of ₹1.01 crore in an HDFC Bank account and ₹19.86 lakh in a Punjab National Bank account being reflected under different PANs. It was contended that these deposits had already been disclosed in the returns filed under the respective PANs and represented duly accounted business receipts.
The Tribunal observed that neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) had examined the returns, books of account and assessment records relating to the other PANs to verify whether the impugned cash deposits had already been disclosed and subjected to assessment. In the absence of such verification, it would be equally inappropriate either to sustain the addition or to delete it solely on the assessee’s assertion.
