The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Allahabad Bench upheld the additions on account of unexplained investment in FDR.
The assessee, Mrs. Shaheen Khan filed his return of income with Revenue on 14th August 2009, declaring a total income of Rs. 4,56,844/-. The main sources of income of the assessee were from interest on FDRs, interest on saving bank account, and interest income of his minor son and daughter. The return of income of the assessee was processed by Revenue u/s 143(1) of the Act, and later on, the case of the assessee was selected for framing scrutiny assessment u/s. 143(3) read with Section 143(2) of the 1961 Act, through CASS on the basis of AIR information as cash was deposited in the savings bank account of the assessee above the prescribed threshold limits.
The additions of Rs. 5,00,000/- made by AO with respect to FDR made out of Kotak Mahindra Bank, on 12.07.2008 being an unexplained investment, which stood confirmed by CIT(A) to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- as unexplained investment in FDR, while the addition of Rs. 3,00,000/- as was made by the AO stood deleted by ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) referred to the addition of Rs. 21,82,000/- confirmed by him and granted relief to the assessee of Rs. 3,00,000/- claimed to be received by the assessee on 10.07.2008 in cash and deposited in Kotak Mahindra bank on 12.07.2008, being sourced out of addition of Rs. 21,82,000/- sustained by ld. CIT(A) w.r.t. cash deposited by assessee in his bank account. The ld. CIT(A) also upheld the additions to the tune of Rs. 1,76,800/- as an unexplained investment in property, as the assessee has deposited cash of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 12.04.2008 and Rs. 76,800/- on 02.05.2008, which as per ld. CIT(A) remained unexplained.
The coram of Judicial Member, Vijay Pal Rao, and Accountant Member, Ramit Kochar ruled that rejected the claim of the assessee that it had Rs. 5,52,650/- as opening cash in hand as of 01.04.2008, as there is no evidence on record to justify the same. This leaves us with a balance of Rs. 5,94,800/- and this cash deposit also remained unexplained as no justification is offered by the assessee and/or the justification offered stood rejected by us. In our considered view, the ld. CIT(A) upheld additions to the tune of Rs. 3,76,000/- on account of unexplained FDR and unexplained investment in property, although cash deposit of Rs. 5,94,800/- still remained unexplained as detailed above, while the addition was sustained by ld. CIT(A) was to the tune of Rs.3,76,800/- on account of unexplained FDR and property. It is not shown to us that Revenue is aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of CIT(A), and it could not be shown to us by rival parties that a cross-appeal or CO is filed by Revenue. There was cash withdrawal as well deposit post 17.10.2008, which stood explained by corresponding cash withdrawals from the bank, and the same was also accepted by ld. CIT(A). Thus, under these circumstances, we are inclined to accept/confirm the additions as were confirmed/upheld by ld. CIT(A) on account of unexplained investment in FDR to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- and also an addition to the tune of Rs. 1,76,800/- on account of unexplained investment in property. The assessee fails on this issue also.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
