VANITA THADANI INDIVIDUAL, MUMBAI V. ITO WD 20(3)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 1079/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0177 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-07-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 16-02-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B SATYANARAYANA RAJU
• Assessee Lawyers: G C LALKA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

, SMC , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES SMC, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1079/MUM/2017 : ASST.YEAR 2010-2011 MS.VANITA THADANI D/O KAMAL THADANI B-105, ARIHANT, BONBON LANE SEVAN BUNGLOWS, ANDHERI (WEST) MUMBAI 400 053. PAN : ADGPT7326P. / VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 20(3)(4) MUMBAI. ( / APPELLANT) ( / RESPONDENT) /APPELLANT BY : SHRI G.C.LALKA /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI B.SATYANARAYANA RAJU (SR.DR) / DATE OF HEARING : 16.05.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03.07.2017 / O R D E R THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) DATED 02.11.2016 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-2011. 2. THE ISSUE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN FACTS AND IN LAW IN UPHOLDING ADDITION OF RS.12,95,000 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT IGNORING THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAD WITHDRAWN CASH OF RS.14,51,300 FROM THE BANK ON VARIOUS DATES AND HAD RE-DEPOSITED THE SAME IN THE BANK. 3. BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN LOANS BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES FROM FRIENDS AND RELATIVES ON VARIOUS DATES AMOUNTING TO RS.19,32,300 AND DEPOSITED ALL THESE CHEQUES BY BANK. OUT OF THESE CHEQUES, ASSESSEE HAD WITHDRAWN RS.14,51,300 ON VARIOUS ITA NO.1079/MUM/2017. MS.VANITA THADANI. 2 DATES FOR PERSONAL USE AND PROPERTY INVESTMENT. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT WHEN PROPERTY DEAL WAS NOT MATARALIZED AND CASH WAS NOT REQUIRED FOR PERSONAL USE, ASSESSEE HAD RE-DEPOSITED AN AMOUNT OF RS.12,95,000 OUT OF CASH BALANCE. THIS EXPLANATION WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). 4. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED RECORDS. 5. I FIND THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE NOT EXAMINED THE ISSUE PROPERLY. ASSESSEES EXPLANATION OF DEPOSIT CAN BE CONSIDERED ONLY AFTER EXAMINING THE SOURCE OF CASH OF THOSE DEPOSITS. IN THIS CASE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT THE SOURCE OF CASH WAS UNSECURED LOANS FROM FRIENDS AND RELATIVES. THIS ASPECT HAS NOT AT ALL EXAMINED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. HENCE, I REMIT THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER THE ISSUE DENOVO AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 6. IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 03 RD DAY OF JULY, 2017. SD/- ( SHAMIM YAHYA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 03 RD JULY, 2017. DEVDAS* / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. ITA NO.1079/MUM/2017. MS.VANITA THADANI. 3 / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI 3. ( ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. / CIT(A), MUMBAI 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. [ / GUARD FILE.