Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1222 (GUJ)

Neeta Kishor Patel v. I. T. O Ward-6

2017-07-04

AKIL KURESHI, BIREN VAISHNAV

body2017
ORDER : AKIL KURESHI, J. 1. Assessee is in appeal against the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 13.10.2016 raising following question for our consideration. “(1) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence placed on record, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 15,32,000/- on account of alleged unexplained bank deposits as income from other sources? 2. The issue pertains to addition of a sum of Rs. 15.32 lakhs made by the Assessing Officer to the assessed income for the assessment year 2008-09. During the assessment, Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had deposited cash amount of Rs. 15.32 lakhs in her bank account in the Axis bank. The assessee was called upon to explain such cash deposits. The explanation offered in brief was that the same was withdrawn from the bank account and was deposited. In short, the assessee's explanation was that the cash deposit was nothing but the cash withdrawn from the assessee's own account. 3. The Assessing Officer rejected the explanation by giving detailed reasons holding that there was neither any need for withdrawal of the cash amounts looking to the nature of business that assessee was engaged in, nor the cash withdrawals could be believed to have been used for depositing the cash. This view of the Assessing Officer was confirmed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal. 4. Before the Tribunal, the assessee relied on the judgment of this Court in case of Commissioner of Income-tax-III v. Manoj Indravadan Chokshi, reported in [2014] 50 taxmann.com 419 (Gujarat), in which, it was observed that once a source of a particular cash deposit in a particular bank account is explained, the assessee was thereafter not required to explain the withdrawal of such amount. The Tribunal however, referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Sumtai Dayal v. Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in [1995] 214 ITR 801 to confirm the view of the Assessing Officer. 5. The Tribunal however, referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Sumtai Dayal v. Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in [1995] 214 ITR 801 to confirm the view of the Assessing Officer. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the assessee and having perused the orders on record, we see no reason to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact by two Revenue authorities and the Tribunal that the assessee failed to explain the source of sizable amount of cash deposits in the bank accounts and therefore, such amount is required to be added to the income of the assessee as income from other source. No question of law arises. Tax appeal is dismissed.