ITO Vs A. Kulanthaivel (ITAT Chennai)
ITAT Chennai held that addition under section 69A of the Income Tax Act towards cash deposits not reflected in bank account details cannot be sustained since the income doesn’t belong to assessee in the individual status but the income belong to HUF of the assessee.
Facts- The AO received information that the assessee has made cash deposit of Rs.4,66,49,320/- in the bank account, however, the same was not reflected in bank account details. Hence, AO added the same u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act. CIT(A) considered the submissions and deleted the addition. Being aggrieved, revenue has preferred the present appeal.
Conclusion- Held that the assessee has inadvertently given his individual PAN i.e AHRPK7764 instead of HUF PAN i.e AAGHK5619B to the bankers while opening bank accounts for business of M/s Sri Velmurugan Modern Rice Mill. We also find that there is no income for the assessee in the individual status and the entire business income belongs to the HUF of the assessee having PAN No. AAGHK5619B. As noted by the ld.CIT(A) that from the copy of ITR filed in HUF capacity having PAN No. AAGHK5619B, wherein all the bank accounts of the assessee are placed, perusal of the schedule to secured loans, sundry creditors and loans creditors, all the bank accounts are find mentioned. Further, we are also of the view that there is no violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Therefore, we do not wish to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A) hence, we affirm the same and dismiss the appeal of the revenue.
