Euro Steels Vs JAO (ITAT Chandigarh)
Assessee’s appeal was filed 177 days late, but the ITAT condoned the delay after considering the explanation. Before the CIT(A), the order had been passed ex-parte, confirming two additions:
(1) ₹17,29,000 for cash deposits, &
(2) ₹22,25,897 for credit entries in bank account.
Before ITAT, Assessee did not press the ground relating to the ₹22,25,897 addition, so that portion was dismissed.
On the key issue of ₹17,29,000 cash deposits, Assessee demonstrated that these deposits were merely re-deposits of cash earlier withdrawn, with only a 3–4 day gap between withdrawal & deposit. This evidence came directly from the bank statements. Tribunal observed that AO had already estimated profit at 2% on bank credits, so a separate addition for cash deposits—when they were explained as redeposits—was unjustified.
The Revenue could not rebut Assessee’s explanation or the bank statement trail.
Held: The cash deposit addition of ₹17,29,000 was not sustainable & was deleted.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT CHANDIGARH
The present appeal has been preferred by the assess ee against the order dated 26.07.2024 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC, Delhi [in short ‘the CIT (Appeals)] pertaining to 2017-18 assessment year.
2. The appeal is time barred by 177 days. A separate application for condonation of delay has been filed.
