Case Law Details
ACIT Vs Dr. Radhey Shyam Garg (ITAT Jaipur)
During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noted that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs. 2,90,000/- in the Central Bank of India whereas on the said date i.e. 16.11.2015 there was a negative cash balance in the cash book of Rs. 1,01,773.84. The AO accordingly made an addition of Rs. 1,01,774/- under section 69 of the IT Act read with section 115BBE of the IT Act. The assessee challenged the action of the AO before the LD. CIT (A) and submitted that the AO has made the addition without giving him any show cause notice and opportunity to explain the source of cash deposited in the bank account. The AO has called for a copy of cash book for the designated date to verify the cash deposit with the bank and in compliance the assessee filed copy of the cash book for the required date only. Thus the assessee has contended before the LD. CIT (A) that without giving show cause notice and opportunity to explain the availability of cash, the addition made by the AO is not justified and liable to be deleted. The assessee further explained that it is a wrong entry passed on 17.11.2015 instead of 16.11.2015 or 14.11.2015 for Rs. 1,20,000/-being cash shown as deposited with the Bank on 14.11.2015. Since there was no actual cash deposited in the bank on the said date, therefore, a reverse entry was passed on 17.11.2015. The LD. CIT (A) deleted the addition after considering the facts explained by the assessee.
The AO has made the addition on the basis of copy of the cash balance in the cash book on a particular date. It is manifest from the assessment order that the AO has not issued any show cause notice to the assessee or even asked the assessee to explain the source of cash deposit in the bank account.
Thus the entries made in the cash book from 14.11.2015 to 17.11.2015 were considered by the LD. CIT (A) and it was found that it was only a genuine mistake on the part of the Data Entry Operator who has made the entry of 17.11.2015 instead of 16.11.2015. In view of the above facts as discussed by the LD. CIT (A) and no contrary material brought before us, we do not find any error or illegality in the impugned order of LD. CIT (A).
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGEMENT
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
