ITAT Holds Personal Bank Credits Cannot be Treated as Undisclosed Business Turnover Without Evidence:

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Ahmedabad has held that credits appearing in a personal savings bank account cannot automatically be regarded as undisclosed business turnover in the absence of any evidence. The Tribunal
ITAT Deletes Addition And Quashes Penalties under Sections 271A, 271B and 272A(1)(d)

ITAT Holds Personal Bank Credits Cannot be Treated as Undisclosed Business Turnover Without Evidence
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Ahmedabad found that the AO had rejected the books of account merely on suspicion without identifying any specific defect and accordingly deleted the addition as well as the penalties.
The assessee is engaged in business through proprietary concerns named Pranav Enterprise and Dexxon Polycoating Enterprise. The assessee filed his return declaring total income of Rs 9.50 lakh and turnover of Rs 9.61 crore. The assessment was completed under Sections 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. During scrutiny proceedings, the AO noticed credits amounting to Rs 2.64 crore in an HDFC Bank account held in the personal name of the assessee. Since the account was not reflected in the books of accounts, the AO treated the entire amount as undisclosed business turnover and increased the turnover to Rs 12.25 crore while rejecting the books of account under Section 145(3).
The income was calculated at 8% of the increased turnover, resulting in assessed income of Rs 98.06 lakh. Penalties under Sections 271A and 271B were also imposed for failure to maintain and audit books of account, while the penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) was levied for non-compliance with statutory notices.
The CIT(A) upheld the assessment and penalty orders, following which the assessee approached the Tribunal.
The Tribunal noted that the HDFC Bank account was a personal savings account which had been disclosed in the return of income. It observed that the assessee had furnished a detailed explanation showing that the credits were internal transfers from proprietary concerns, family members and HUF, along with receipts such as rent, dividend, interest, insurance proceeds, sale of agricultural land and reimbursements.
The tribunal observed that merely because amounts were credited in a personal account, it could not be assumed that they were undisclosed business turnover. The Tribunal further observed that the turnover declared by the assessee was duly supported by GST returns and TIS data. No defect relating to purchases, sales, stock records, vouchers or quantitative details had been pointed out by the AO. Therefore, rejection of books of account under Section 145(3) solely on the basis of suspicion was unsustainable.
Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in estimating profit at 8% on the enhanced turnover and directed deletion of the addition. Since the very basis of the assessment failed, the penalties imposed under Sections 271A and 271B were also deleted, while allowing all four appeals.
About Author

Saima
Content Writer
Saima is a Law graduate with a passion for research and content writing. She writes for Finance, Taxation and Legal Updates at Studycafe.in, simplifying complex legal decisions by the ITAT, High Court, AAR and GSTAT into uncomplicated and clear explanations.
Saima is a Law graduate with a passion for research and content writing. She writes for Finance, Taxation and Legal Updates at Studycafe.in, simplifying complex legal decisions by the ITAT, High Court, AAR and GSTAT into uncomplicated and clear explanations.
StudyCafe
Delhi, Delhi, India
176My Recent Articles
- High Court Quashes Reassessment Notice Based on Retrospective Application of Section 55A AmendmentPremium
- High Court Quashes Section 179 Proceedings Against Directors for Lack of Reasonable Opportunity Premium
- High Court Rules Reassessment Notice under Section 148 Cannot Be Issued on Mere Change of OpinionPremium
- High Court rules CGST Adjudication Challenges Involving Sections 74(9), 75(4), 70 and 122 Do Not Automatically Warrant Article 226 InterferencePremium
- High Court Restores GST Registration of Tempo Operator Cancelled for Six Month Return DefaultPremium
Up Next
Loading suggestions…
Recent Posts

All Posts

Recent Posts

All Posts









