Case Law Details
Smt. Renukaben Umedsinh Parmar Vs ITO (ITAT Surat)
The assessing officer made addition by taking his view that assessee is a Government Employee and was maintaining bank account and that a person who is maintaining bank account will not keep such huge cash in hand which is abnormal. The ld.CIT(A) concurred with the finding of assessing officer without giving any specific reasoning. We have noted that assessee has filed sufficient documentary which includes the cash flow statement for relevant previous year, copies of Income Tax Return, computation of her and her husband from A.Y. 2006-07 to A.Y. 2011-12 and A.Y. 2005-06 to A.Y. 2011-12 respectively. We have noted that the assessee has placed on record sufficient evidences that assessee’s husband was having agricultural income, income from house property and income from salary. No finding was given by the lower authorities of such documentary evidence. We have noted that agricultural income and salary income of assessee’s husband is not disputed by the Revenue. Admittedly, the bank account no. 597 in Bank of Baroda, wherein the impugned cash deposit is in dispute is joint account of assessee and her husband. The Lower Authorities has not made any investigation whether her husband is maintaining any other or separate bank account. The cash flow statement was not examined by the lower authorities. The assessing officer during the assessment made enquiries under section 133(6) of the Act, and certain replies were received in response thereto. Admittedly the copies of reply were not provided to the assessee. The assessee has placed on record the details of income of assessee from A.Y. 2005-06 to A.Y. 2010-11 as well as her husband from A.Y. 2005-06 to A.Y. 2010-11, showing the house hold withdrawal [page 22-23 of the paper book]. No finding was given on such documentary evidence. No adverse evidence was acquired by the Assessing Officer except assuming and presuming the deposit in the bank account has unexplained cash credit. The assessee has admitted the ownership of the credit and that outgoes have gone to her son for his study in Australia. The lower authorities were of the view that the assessee has not explained the sources. Before us, the assessee has also filed the copies of ownership of land holdings of about fifty bigha of land. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view, it is a fit case for granting benefit of peak credit to the assessee, as no adverse material is brought on record except taking view that keeping of such cash at home is abnormal. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to restore the appeal to the file of assessing officer to consider the plea of assessee to grant her the benefit of peak credit and grant appropriate relief to the assessee.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT SURAT
This appeal by Assessee is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Valsad, Valsad dated 01.06.2015 for assessment year (AY) 2011-12. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
