M/s Madrasa Nurul Islam, Pratapgarh V. ACIT, Sultanpur

CO 20/ALLD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7878 (ITAT-ALLAHABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 02-11-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 05-09-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: Y P SRIVASTA VA
• Assessee Lawyers: ARVIND SHUKLA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD BEFORE : SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.L. GEHLOT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 143/ALLD/2011 ASSTT. YEAR : 2005-06 A.C.I.T., CIRCLE VS. M/S. MADARSA NURUL ISLAM, SULTANPUR. SARJU NAGAR, KUNDA, PRATAPGARH. (PAN :AAAAI 1489 C) C.O. NO. 20/ALLD/2011 (IN ITA NO. 143/ALLD/2011) ASSTT. YEAR : 2005-06 M/S. MADARSA NURUL ISLAM, VS. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE SARJU NAGAR, KUNDA, SULTANPUR. PRATAPGARH. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI Y.P. SRIVASTAVA, D.R. ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ARVIND SHUKLA, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING : 31.10.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER : 02 .11.2012 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M.: THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL AND THE CROSS OBJECTION BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-II, LUCKNOW DATED 0 4.05.2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. ITA NO. 143 & C.O. NO. 20/ALLD/2011 2 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH TH E PARTIES, PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND CONSIDERED TH E MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SEEKS PERMISSION T O WITHDRAW THE CROSS OBJECTION. THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN. 3. IN THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL, THE REVENUE CHALLENG ED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.16,93,460/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED FROM THE STATEMENT OF RECEIPT AND PAYMENT THAT AN O PENING CASH IN HAND OF RS.16,93,460/- HAS BEEN SHOWN ON THE RECEIPT SIDE A S CASH IN HAND WITH NIZAM SAHIB (MANAGER). THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO SUBSTANT IATE THE SAME. DURING THE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT AS THERE WAS NO BANK ACCOUNT IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD, THEREFORE, CAS H WAS KEPT WITH NIZAM. REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER AS OPENING CASH BALANCE OF RS.1,09,596/- WAS ALSO SHOWN IN MADARSA ACCOUNT WHI CH SHOWS THAT CASH BOOK OF MADARSA WAS BEING MAINTAINED, BUT CASH WITH NIZAM W AS NOT ACCOUNTED FOR. THE ADDITION WAS, ACCORDINGLY, MADE. IT WAS SUBMITTED B EFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE CA SH WAS HELD BY TWO PERSONS, I.E., NIZAM AND CASHIER, WHO WAS MAINTAINING THEIR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE ACCOUNTS FILED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, REFLECTED THE MERGED FIGURE OF THESE TWO SETS OF BOOKS MAINTAINED FOR THE SOCIETY. FOR MATTER OF CONVENIENCE THE ITA NO. 143 & C.O. NO. 20/ALLD/2011 3 OPENING AND CLOSING BALANCE HAVE BEEN SEPARATELY SH OWN , THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE FILED. IT WAS, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITI ON ON ACCOUNT OF CLOSING BALANCE OF EARLIER YEAR AND OPENING BALANCE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL IS UNJUSTIFIED. THE LD. CIT(A) ACCEPTED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSE SSEE ON THE BASIS OF RECEIPT AND PAYMENT STATEMENT MADE BY ASSESSEE BECAUSE IN THE A SSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, OPENING CASH IN HAND HAS BEEN SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN A SUM OF RS.18,03,056/- WHICH INCLUDES CASH OF RS.1,09,595/- IN MADARSA ACCOUNT AND CASH OF RS.16,93,460/- WITH NIZAM. THIS FACT HAS NOT BEE N DISPUTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION COULD NOT BE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF OPENING BALANCE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ADDITION WAS ACCORDI NGLY DELETED. 4. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN DELET ING THE ADDITION OF RS.16,93,460/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED STATEMENT OF RECEIPT AND PAY MENT ACCOUNT ENDING ON 31.03.2004 IN THE PAPER BOOK AT PAGE 22, OF THE PRE CEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR IN WHICH THE CLOSING BALANCE AS ON 31.03.2004 WAS SHOW N IN A SUM OF RS.18,03,056/-, WHICH CONSISTS OF TWO ITEMS, I.E. CASH IN HAND (MAD ARSA) RS. 1,09,595/- AND CASH IN HAND (NIZAM SAHIB) RS.16,93,460/-. THE SAME BALANCE HAS BEEN CARRIED FORWARD AS OPENING BALANCE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL, I. E., 2005-06 AND SAME FIGURE HAS BEEN MENTIONED AS OPENING BALANCE AS ON 01.04.2004 (PB -26- STATEMENT OF RECEIPT ITA NO. 143 & C.O. NO. 20/ALLD/2011 4 AND PAYMENT AS ON 31.03.2005). THUS, THE CASH IN HA ND WITH NIZAM WAS MERELY OPENING CASH BALANCE WITH THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IS RE FLECTED IN PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR AS WELL AS IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL . THE WHOLE BASIS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN MAKING SUCH ADDITION IS UNJUST IFIED IN LAW. THE LD. CIT(A) ON PROPER APPRECIATION OF FACTS CORRECTLY DELETED THE ADDITION IN THE MATTER. THE LD. DR MERELY RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER BUT COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL THROUG H ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF M ATERIAL ON RECORD, THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL FAILS AND IS DISMISSED. NO OTHER POINT IS RAISED OR ARGUED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE DEPARTMENT APPEAL IS DISMISSE D AND THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (A.L. GEHLOT) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *AKS/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A), CONCERNED BY ORDER 4. CIT, CONCERNED 5. DR, ITAT, ALLAHABAD 6. GUARD FILE ASSTT. REGISTRAR TRUE COPY