Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Smt. Kavita Chandra Vs CIT (Appeals) (Punjab & Haryana High Court)
Appeal Number : IT Appeal No. 421 of 2016 (O & M)
Date of Judgement/Order : 07/03/2017
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

After examining the entire evidence on record, the Tribunal has upheld the finding recorded by CIT(A) with regard to cash deposit to the tune of Rs. 14,20,212/- as unexplained. It has been categorically recorded by the Tribunal that out of the 33 withdrawals, only two withdrawals of Rs. 2 lacs each from Bank of Rajasthan and ICICI Bank were made in cash. The rest were all withdrawals by cheque – small amounts made mostly by an employee of the assessee. Similarly, in many cases, small amounts were withdrawn two or three times on a single day by different persons. Further, the deposits in Bank were made after a gap of two-three instances of withdrawals. Taking the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal concurred with the findings recorded by the CIT(A) that the withdrawals were for the purpose of business and not available for redeposit. Further, the withdrawals were re-deposited after a gap of two or three months which was not probable. Thus, the assessee was not able to link the cash withdrawn from the bank with the cash deposit. Consequently, the finding of the CIT(A) with regard to treating the cash deposit of Rs. 14,20,212/- as unexplained income of the assessee was upheld by the Tribunal. Thus, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed.

Full Text of the High Court Judgment / Order is as follows:-

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant- assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”) against the order dated 14.6.2016, Annexure A.4, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Division Bench, Chandigarh (in short, “the Tribunal”) in ITA No.1458/CHD/2010 for the assessment year 2007-08, claiming following substantial questions of law:—

(i) Whether in the present facts and circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT was justified in upholding the addition of Rs. 14,20,212/-

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

3 Comments

  1. Jitendra Vichare says:

    Dear Sir,
    Thanks for highlighting this issue.
    We are Advertising Agency and last two months I am trying to raise this issue .
    It is great if you can help to arrest this problem.
    Thanks and Regards

  2. K NANDA KUMAR says:

    Sir, appartently this was written before the announcement of GST @ 28% on cinema tickets. It is a huge negative for the industry, with local bodies, being allowed to collect additional taxes/cess on cinema tickets.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031