PRITI LOHIA, MUMBAI V. ITO RG 21(1)(4), MUMBAI

CO 19/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7050 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 29-02-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 07-02-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ATIG AHMAD
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Income from undisclosed sources

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH: MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.2985/MUM /2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07) INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD 21(1)(4), ROOM NO.606, 6TH FLOOR, PRATYAKSHAKAR BHAVAN, BKC, BANDRA (E) KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA MUMBAI ...... APPELLANT VS MS. PRITI LOHIA, 62, SHANGRILLA GULMOHAR CROSS ROAD NO.11, SAMARTH R. MARG, JUHU, MUMBAI -400 049 ..... RESPONDENT C.O. NO.19/MUM /2012 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.2985/MUM/2010, A.Y. 2006-07 MS. PRITI LOHIA, 62, SHANGRILLA GULMOHAR CROSS ROAD NO.11, SAMARTH R. MARG, JUHU, MUMBAI -400 049 ...... APPELLANT CROSS OBJECTOR VS INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD 21(1)(4), ROOM NO.606, 6TH FLOOR, PRATYAKSHAKAR BHAVAN, BKC, BANDRA (E) KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA MUMBAI ..... RESPONDENT PAN: AACPL 1749 D APPELLANT CROSS OBJECTOR BY: MS. SHILPI JAIN REVENUE BY: SHRI ATIG AHMAD DATE OF HEARING: 21.02.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 29 .02.2012 O R D E R PER R.S. PADVEKAR, JM : THE REVENUE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL CHALLENGING THE I MPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A)-32, MUMBAI DATED 08.01.201 0 FOR THE A.Y. 2006-07. THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING EFFEC TIVE GROUND: ITA 2985/M/2010 C.O. 19/M/2012 MS. PRITI LOHIA 2 1. I) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF ` 12,05,100/- MADE BY THE A.O. AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S.68 OF THE I.T. ACT. II) BY DIRECTING THE A.O. TO CONSIDER THE PEAK CAS H CREDIT, THE CIT (A) HAS NOT APPRECIATED THE FACT TH AT THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL TIME GAP BETWEEN THE CASH DEPOSITS AND CASH WITHDRAWALS. 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS ARE AS UNDER. THE ASSES SEE FILED THE RETURN FOR THE A.Y. 2006-07 DECLARING INCOME OF ` 2,05,240/- WHICH WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. IT WAS NOTICED BY THE A .O. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE THE CASH DEPOSITS TO THE EXTENT OF ` 12,05,100/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S.68 OF THE ACT. THE ASS ESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITION BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A). THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) THAT ENTIRE CREDIT OF ` 12,05,100/- WAS EXPLAINABLE IN RESPECT OF AMOUNT DEPOSITED IN THE S/B. A/C. I.E. S B/01/00003369, JUHU VILE PARLE BRANCH, MUMBAI. THE CASH WAS DEPOS ITED ON THE DIFFERENT DATES. IT WAS STATED THAT CASH OF ` 9,23,000/- HAD BEEN WITHDRAWN DURING THE YEAR FROM TIME TO TIME AND SUM OF ` 8,50,800/- HAD BEEN DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OUT OF THE C ASH WITHDRAWALS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO STATED THAT DEPOSIT OF ` 3,54,300/- HAD BEEN MADE OUT OF OPENING CASH BALANCE OF ` 6,90,460/-. THE ASSESSEE ALSO PLEADED THAT AT THE MOST ONLY PEAK OF THE AMOUNT DE POSITED MAY BE TREATED AS UNACCOUNTED INCOME WHICH AS PER THE ASSE SSEE WAS WORKED OUT AT ` 2,82,100/-. THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS STATEMENT OF T HE BANK ACCOUNT BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) AND DEMONSTRATED TH E MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF PEAK. THE LD. CIT (A) ACCEPTED THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE AND HE SUSTAINED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF ` 2,82,100/- IN PLACE OF ` 12,05,100/-. NOW, THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE GRIEV ANCE IN THIS APPEAL AGAINST THE PART RELIEF GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT (A). ITA 2985/M/2010 C.O. 19/M/2012 MS. PRITI LOHIA 3 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD S. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS REPRODUCED THE STATEMENT SHOWING THE PE AK OF AMOUNT DEPOSITED IN HIS ACCOUNT. AS PER THE STATEMENT, TH E ASSESSEE HAS MADE DEPOSITS AND WITHDRAWALS FROM TIME TO TIME. T HE A.O. MADE ADDITION ONLY CONSIDERING THE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT, BUT DID NOT CONSIDER WITHDRAWALS. IN OUR OPINION, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS CORRECTLY SUSTAINED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF THE PEAK OF THE AMOUNT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. WE, THEREFORE, FIND NO REASON TO INT ERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A). ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 4. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE CROSS OBJECTION TAKIN G THE FOLLOWING TWO GROUNDS: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, TH E LEARNED CIT (A) GROSSLY ERRED IN OBSERVING THAT CASH OF ` 12,05,100/- DEPOSITED IN BANK ACCOUNT IS NOT EXPLAINED BY YOUR APPELLANT THEREBY, COMPLETING IGNORING THE FACT OF YOUR APPELLANT THAT THE ENTIRE CASH OF ` 12,05,100/- DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT IS DULY ACCOUNTED IN REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND PROPERLY EXPLAINED. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT (A) GROSSLY ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF ` 2,82,100/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S.68. 5. WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE, WE HAVE CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A). WE FIND TH AT, ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT TENDERED ANY EXPLANATION IN RESPEC T OF THE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK, MORE PARTICULARLY, TO THE EXT ENT OF THE SOURCE. WE FIND NO MERITS IN THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSES SEE. ACCORDINGLY, BOTH THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS CROSS OBJECTION ARE DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, BOTH REVENUES APPEAL AND ASSESSE ES CROSS OBJECTION ARE DISMISSED. ITA 2985/M/2010 C.O. 19/M/2012 MS. PRITI LOHIA 4 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS DAY OF 2 9TH FEBRUARY, 2012. SD/- ( J. SUDHAKAR REDDY ) ACCOUTANT MEMBER SD/- ( R.S. PADVEKAR ) JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATE: 29TH FEBRUARY, 2012 COPY TO:- 1) THE APPELLANT. 2) THE RESPONDENT. 3) THE CIT (A)-32, MUMBAI. 4) THE CIT-CITY-21, MUMBAI. 5) THE D.R. C BENCH, MUMBAI. BY ORDER / / TRUE COPY / / ASSTT. REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., MUMBAI *CHAVAN