Case Law Details
Shivakumaraswamy Credit Co-Operative Society Ltd. Vs ITO (Karnataka High Court)
The Karnataka High Court has delivered a ruling in favor of the Shivakumaraswamy Credit Co-Operative Society Ltd., setting aside a series of notices and assessment orders issued by the Income Tax Department. The petitioner, a cooperative society, had challenged multiple actions taken by the Income Tax Officer (ITO), including notices under Section 148-A and Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as well as the subsequent assessment and penalty orders.
The petitioner, Shivakumaraswamy Credit Co-Operative Society Ltd., received a notice under Section 148-A(b) of the Income Tax Act in connection with its cash deposits. The petitioner responded to the notice, providing documents on January 24, 2024, which included a cash flow chart, bank book, and cash book. These documents aimed to demonstrate the source of the cash deposits and were intended to prove the genuineness of the transactions.
However, despite the submission of these documents, the Assessing Officer remained unconvinced of the authenticity of the transactions. Specifically, the Officer questioned the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the members involved in the transactions. This led to the issuance of an assessment order under Section 147, read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, as well as penalty notices under other related provisions.
The petitioner argued that the cash deposits were legitimate and properly documented. It contended that all relevant evidence had been submitted to support the transactions, including detailed financial records. The petitioner further submitted that the Assessing Officer’s conclusion—doubting the genuineness of the transactions—was not based on the evidence provided.
The society asserted that it had fully explained the source of the cash deposits and the nature of the transactions. It also claimed that if given a fair opportunity, it could further prove the genuineness of the transactions by providing additional details about the identity and creditworthiness of its members.
The Karnataka High Court, presided over by Justice [Name of Judge], took into account the petitioner’s submission and the fact that the Assessing Officer had doubted the authenticity of the transactions despite the evidence presented. The court recognized that the petitioner had produced significant documents to explain the source of the cash deposits and found that the matter required further examination.
The court opined that it would be appropriate to remand the case to the Assessing Officer to allow the petitioner to provide additional evidence to support its claims. The petitioner would have the opportunity to demonstrate the genuineness of the transactions and the creditworthiness of its members.
As a result, the court set aside the following actions:
- Notice under Section 148-A(b) of the Income Tax Act
- Order under Section 148-A(d) of the Income Tax Act
- Notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act
- Assessment order under Section 147, read with Section 144B
- Penalty notices issued under various provisions
The court relegated the case back to the stage of reply to the notice under Section 148-A(b), thereby providing the petitioner another opportunity to present its case before the Assessing Officer.
This ruling provides a significant precedent for similar cases where cooperative societies or other entities are being scrutinized for unexplained cash deposits. The Karnataka High Court’s decision emphasizes the need for tax authorities to allow sufficient opportunity for petitioners to provide evidence before reaching conclusions on the genuineness of transactions.
The court’s decision to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer highlights the importance of procedural fairness in tax assessments. The case also underscores the fact that assessment orders and penalty notices can be set aside if proper consideration of evidence is not given by tax authorities.
The Karnataka High Court’s ruling in the case of Shivakumaraswamy Credit Co-Operative Society Ltd. marks a critical moment in the ongoing discourse over tax assessments related to cash deposits. The court’s decision to remand the matter back for further review ensures that the petitioner will have another chance to provide the necessary evidence to prove the legitimacy of its transactions. The outcome of this case could serve as a reference for other similar matters involving questions over cash deposits and their tax implications.
The petition has been disposed of, and the matter will now proceed to further examination by the Assessing Officer, where the petitioner will have the opportunity to defend its claims.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Petitioner which is a Co-operative Society, has called in question the validity of notice under Section 148-A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) at Annexures-B and C; the order under Section 148-A(d) of the Act at Annexure-E; notice under Section 148 of the Act at Annexure-F; assessment order under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Act at Annexure-H and the penalty notices at Annexures-J and J1.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that insofar as the cash deposits of the Bank are concerned, petitioner had made out a written reply on 24.01.2024 and had placed relevant documents referred to in Paragraph No.4.2 of the Assessment Order including the documents to demonstrate the source of cash deposits. It is submitted that cash flow chart as well as the bank book and cash book with narrations were furnished. It is submitted that however, the conclusion drawn by the Assessing Officer is that the assessee has not explained the genuineness of the transactions and identity and credit worthiness of the members by filing copies of relevant documents and evidence. It is further submitted that insofar as the genuineness of the transaction, petitioner would demonstrate the same if an opportunity is given.
3. Taking note that the petitioner has produced documents to explain the source of cash deposits while the assessing officer has doubted the genuineness of such transactions, it would be appropriate to relegate the matter to the Assessing Officer with liberty to the petitioner to demonstrate the genuineness of the transactions including the identity and credit worthiness of the members during the relevant period of time.
4. In light of the same, the order under Section 148-A(d) of the Act at Annexure-E; notice under Section 148 of the Act at Annexure-F; assessment order under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Act at Annexure-H and the penalty notices at Annexures-J and J1, are set aside. The matter is relegated to the stage of reply to the notice under Section 148-A(b) of the Act. All contentions are kept open including those not adverted to specifically.
5. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off.
Author Bio
