TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1020X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DELHI HIGH COURT] relying on Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT [2006 (3) TMI 75 - SUPREME COURT] has held that wherein deduction claimed by way of a letter before the Assessing Officer, was disallowed on the ground that there was no provision under the Act to make amendment in the return without filing a revised return. Appeal to the Supreme Court, as the decision was upheld by the Tribunal and the High Court, was dismissed making clear that the decision was limited to the power of the assessing authority to entertain claim for deduction otherwise than by a revised return, and did not impinge on the power of the Tribunal. In view of the above, in our considered opinion, it shall be in the interest of the justice to restore this matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication after proper verification. Addition invoking provisions of Section 68 - Assessee was not maintainable any books of account during the year under consideration. Therefore, the addition is hereby deleted. - ITA No. 1808/Del/2016 - - - Dated:- 10-4-2019 - Sh. H. S. Sidhu, Judicial Member And Sh. N. S. Saini, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Sh. Anil Kumar Jain, CA For the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessing Officer that deposit of ₹ 19,00,000/- in the bank was included in the income of ₹ 25,00,000/- declared under the head income from other sources and other income. However, due to mistake in the return of income ₹ 19,00,000/- was again separately declared as income. In other words, income of ₹ 19,00,000/- was offered for tax twice due to mistake in the return of income. 8. However, the Assessing Officer has not accepted the above contention of the assessee and not reduced ₹ 19,00,000/- on the ground that the assessee has not filed revised return of income. 9. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer for the same reason. 10. The Authorized Representative of the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities and relied upon the decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Sam Global Securities Ltd. 360 ITR 682 (Del.) 11. On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representative supported the orders of the lower authorities. 12. We find that under the scheme of the Income Tax Act, a person assessable on his total income computed as per the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies and material available on record. In the instant case, the assessee claimed agriculture income at ₹ 20,00,000/-. The Assessing Officer being not satisfied with the claim of the assessee added ₹ 20,00,000/- to the income of the assessee by invoking provisions of Section 68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer has held as under: 3.4 Thus in the absence of any substantial agricultural land belonging to the assessee, any bills/details for purchase of agricultural inputs sale of agricultural produce, the alleged receipts of ₹ 20,00,000/- are not accepted as agricultural income of the assessee and are added to the total income of the assessee u/s 68 of the I.T. Act. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for filing inaccurate particulars of income to this extent. 18. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the above action of the Assessing Officer but restricted the amount of addition to ₹ 19,00,000/-. 19. Before us, the assessee raised a technical ground and submitted that as the assessee was not maintaining any books of account, the addition made u/s 68 of the Act is bad in law as the pre-condition for in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ordinary course of business of the assessee, no such addition u/s 68 of the Act is tenable. Therefore, in our considered opinion the legal ground in dispute is squarely 8 covered by the decision of the ITAT, F Bench vide order dated 27.11.2018 in ITA No. 2483/Del/2015 (AY 2011-12) in the case of Vijay Kumar Prop. V.K. Medical Hall vs. ITO wherein, the Tribunal has adjudicated the similar and identical issue to the issue in dispute by holding as under:- 8. Ld. AR submitted that Assessing Officer has invoked section 68, on cash deposits found in bank accounts. He submitted that, admittedly assessee is not maintaining any books of account and, therefore, any addition under section 68 is untenable in law as section is applicable only where credits are found in books of accounts maintained by assessee. He referred to definition of books of account in section 2(12A) of the Act, which reads as under: section 2(12 A): books or books of account includes ledgers, daybooks, cash books, account books and other books whether kept in the written form or as printouts of Tata stored 9 in a floppy, disk, tape or any other form of electromagnetic data storage device; He also referred to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t applicable, when assessee does not maintain any books of accounts. He, thus, vehemently argued that, provisions of section 68 is applicable, only when, no explanation and/or explanation offered by assessee is not satisfactory, regarding any 12 amount found credited in books of account of assessee. 13. Be that as it may, we have carefully perused provisions of section 68. This section starts with words, where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year,....... . Therefore, section 68 can be applied only where, there are sum found credited in books of account maintained by assessee. No doubt passbook /bank statement, are maintained by a bank for its customers. Thus in our considered opinion, we agree with proposition advanced by Ld.AR of non applicability of section 68 in case of cash credit found in saving bank account. 14. It is further observed that Ld. AO applied section 68 and made additions in hands of assessee, as unexplained cash credits, to such amount, which has been found deposited by assessee in his saving bank account. To our mind in present facts of case section 69 should have been initiated by Ld.AO. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
