Read and express views
× Latest Case Laws on Income Tax by various Income Tax Appellate Tribunals in India

These are the latest case laws decided by various Income Tax Appellate Tribunals (ITAT) of India on Income Tax which have been published recently. The case laws are open for discussion and we invite expert comments from our members on its applicability and effect on relevant issues.

11-03-2019, Bhupendra Kumar Jain , Section 68, 56(2)(v), Tribunal Raipur

  • amit
  • amit's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Administrator
  • Administrator
2 months 6 days ago #8792 by amit
Section - 68, 56(2)(v)
Order Date - 11-03-2019
Favouring - Assessee
Court - Tribunal Raipur
Appellant - ITO
Respondent - Bhupendra Kumar Jain (HUF)
Citation - 319Taxpundit240
Appeal No. - ITA No.49/RPR/2016
Asstt. Year - 2012-13



These cross-appeals filed by Revenue and assessee emanate out of the order of Commissioner of Income-Tax (A)-II, Raipur dated 11-01-2016 for A.Y. 2012-13.

2. The relevant facts as culled out from the material on record are as under :-

Assessee is an individual and derives income from share trading and interest on deposits from Bank. Assessee filed his return of income for A.Y. 2012-13 on 17-07-2013 declaring total income at Rs.3,66,000/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter the assessment was framed u/s 143(3) vide order dated 30-03-2015 and the total income was determined at Rs.57,41,000/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A), who vide order dated 11-01-2016 (in Appeal No.CIT(A)-II/RPR/A.No.46/14-15/2015-16) granted partial relief to the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), assessee and Revenue are now in appeal before us.

3. The grounds raised by the Revenue in ITA No. 49/RPR/2016 reads as under :

1. “Whether in law and on facts & circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.43,00,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?"

2. “The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming a sum of Rs.7,49,090/- out of total cash deposits of Rs.43,00,000/- made by the assessee during the financial year under consideration.”

3. “The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the provisions of section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is a deeming provision and, therefore, in absence f primary evidence for explanation of nature and source, the total amount ought to have been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A).”

4. “The Order of the Ld. CIT (A) is erroneous both in law and on facts?”

5. “Any other ground that may be adduced at the time of hearing?” On the other hand the grounds raised by the assessee in ITA No. 51/PUN/2016 reads as under :

“1. That on the facts and on the circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A)-II erred in upholding addition of Rs.7,49,090/- out of disallowance of Rs.43,00,000/- made by Ld. A.O. on account of deposit in bank. The addition of Rs.7,49,090/- is unjustified and may kindly be deleted.

2. That on the facts and on the circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A)-II erred in upholding addition made by Ld. AO for the Unsecured loan of Rs.10,75,000/- provided by Mr. M.C. Jain, father of Karta to the HUF through Cheque. The addition made is unjustified and may kindly be deleted.

3. The Appellant craves leave to add and/or amend and/or alter abovementioned grounds of Appeal at the time of hearing.”

4. Before us at the time of hearing, at the outset, Ld. DR vide letter dated 17-01-2019 submitted that the Revenue wishes to withdraw the appeal on account of low tax effect. In view of the submissions of Revenue the appeal of Revenue is dismissed being withdrawn.

5. In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed as withdrawn. ITA No. 51/RPR/2016

6. We now proceed with assessee’s appeal. First ground with respect to addition of Rs.7,49,090/-.

7. During the course of assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer noticed that assessee had deposited cash aggregate to Rs.43,00,000/- in the saving bank maintained with Axis Bank, Rajnandgaon. The assessee was asked to explain the source of cash deposits and furnish cash flow chart. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee did not furnish any explanation with respect to cash deposits. Assessing Officer accordingly, considered the cash deposits in the bank account as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 and made its addition. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) after

Click to view and download Full Free Judgement of ITO vs. Bhupendra Kumar Jain (HUF)

Unable to display Google Map.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.120 seconds

If You Appreciate What We Do Here On TaxPundit, You Should Consider:

We are thankful for your never ending support.

Latest Analysis - High Courts

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35

Forum Features

Latest Case Laws
Latest Case Laws are instantly updated in the Forum into their respective section
Latest from CBDT
Latest Circulars, Notifications, Orders etc. from CBDT is updated in the Forum
Ask Experts
You can ask questions to the community
Support queries are either replied via mail or in the Forum so that others can be benefited
Press Releases
Latest Press Notes and Press Releases are updated in the Forum
Connect with Members
You can connect with our community members by replying to their queries

Recommended Articles



All content herein is the copyright of Taxpundit. No images, text, or any other content may be, reproduced or redistributed without the express written consent of Taxpundit.

All Rights Reserved. All Content Copyright.


Subscribe to our newsletter and stay updated on the latest developments and special offers!

Create your own website as per ICAI guidelines. Plan starts at Rs. 15000/- with Free Premium Membership. Read more
Toggle Bar