Kamal Chand Sisodiya Vs ITO (ITAT Indore)
In a recent ruling, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Indore addressed the appeal of Kamal Chand Sisodiya against the Income Tax Officer (ITO) regarding the assessment year 2011-12. The Tribunal accepted the peak credit theory, confirming that past savings of a government employee should not be disbelieved and could serve as a valid source for subsequent bank deposits.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from an assessment order dated December 13, 2018, issued under sections 144 and 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ITO initiated proceedings following cash deposits in the taxpayer’s bank account during the financial year 2010-11, leading to the issuance of a notice under section 148. The ITO’s subsequent investigation included direct requests for the taxpayer’s bank statements, resulting in a significant addition to the taxpayer’s declared income.
The ITO determined the total income at ₹14,08,880, including an addition of ₹2,47,881 for salary income and ₹11,61,000 for unexplained bank deposits. Dissatisfied with the assessment, Sisodiya appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)), who granted partial relief but upheld most of the additions made by the ITO.
Grounds for Appeal
Kamal Chand Sisodiya raised two key grounds in his appeal to the ITAT:
- Disputed Salary Addition: He contested the upheld addition of ₹2,25,133 out of the total salary addition of ₹2,47,881, though this ground was eventually dismissed as non-pressed during the hearing.
- Unexplained Cash Deposits: The primary contention revolved around the ITO’s addition of ₹11,61,000, labeled as unexplained deposits. Sisodiya argued that he had received substantial past savings, including a death-cum-retirement gratuity and contributions from the General Provident Fund (GPF), which he claimed were exempt and adequately explained the bank deposits.
Tribunal Proceedings
During the hearings, Sisodiya’s legal representative emphasized the significance of his past savings, arguing that the ITO’s approach failed to account for cash withdrawals and the existing cash balance. He presented three alternative cash flow statements to demonstrate that the deposits could be explained by past accumulations and cash transactions in the relevant financial year.
