Yashwant Rangnath Kulkarni, Pune V. Income-tax Officer, Ward - 7(2), Pune

ITA 1128/PUN/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7733 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 22-06-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

] IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH SMC, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM . / ITA NO.1128/PUN/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 YASHWANT RANGNATH KULKARNI, FLAT NO.1, WING B, PREMRAJ RESIDENCY, ANAND NAGAR, OLD SANGAVI, PUNE 411 027. PAN : ABPPK2692G. . / APPELLANT V/S THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 7(2), PUNE. . / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI KISHORE PHADKE. REVENUE BY : SHRI RAJESH GAWALI. / ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDE R OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), 3, PUNE, DATED 24.04.201 8 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN APPEAL HAS ASSAILED THE ORDER OF CIT(A ) BY RAISING FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A)-3, PUNE ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LEARNED ITO, WARD 7(2) , PUNE (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE LEARNED AO) U/S 68 OF THE ITA, 1 961; AMOUNTING TO RS. 21,50,000/- FOR CASH DEPOSI T ED IN PUNE PEOPLE CO-OP BANK LTD . / DATE OF HEARING : 09.01.2019 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 16.01.2019. 2 ITA NO.1128/PUN/2018 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A)-3 , PUNE AND THE LEARNED AO ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BAN K ACCOUNT ACTUALLY BELONGED TO APPELLANT ' S FATHER (I.E. LATE MR. RANGNATH KULKARNI) , WHICH WAS GENERATED TH R OUGH HIS AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES. THE LEARNED CIT(A)-3, PUNE OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED TH AT APPELLANT WAS ONLY ACTING AS A CUSTODIAN ON BEHALF OF HIS FATHER AND THE CASH WAS DEPOSITED IN HIS BANK A/C. CONSIDERING THE FAMILY D ISPUTES . 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A)-3 , PUNE AND THE LEARNED AO ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE ONLY SOURCE OF I NCOME TO THE APPELLANT WAS SALARY AND THERE WAS NO ANY OTHER SOURCE FROM W HICH CASH OF RS. 21,50,000/- COULD BE GENERATED . 3. SHRI KISHORE PHADKE APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSE E SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A SALARIED PERSON AND IS ALSO HAVING INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE ASSESSMENT OF APPELLANT FOR A.Y. 2010-11 WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY UND ER CASS. DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.21,50,000/- FROM TIME TO TIME IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT WITH PUNE PEOPLES CO-OPERAT IVE BANK LTD., AUNDH, PUNE. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE DEPOSITED CASH WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HIS FATHER BEFORE HIS DEATH ON 18.10.2009. THE LD.A.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE FATHER O F THE ASSESSEE WAS AN AGRICULTURIST AND WAS HOLDING AROUND 36 ACRES OF LAND IN AKKALKOT, DISTRICT SOLAPUR AND WAS EARNING AGRICULTUR AL INCOME. THE FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT KEEPING GOOD HEALTH FOR THE PAST SOME TIME. THE EARNINGS FROM SALE OF AGRICULTUR AL PRODUCE WERE RETAINED BY HIS FATHER AT HOME AND WERE NOT DEP OSITED IN THE BANK AS HE WAS NOT HAVING ANY BANK ACCOUNT OF HIS OWN. THE FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT HAVING ANY PAN AS WELL. THE AS SESSEE OPENED THE BANK ACCOUNT IN HIS OWN NAME AND DEPOSITED THE CASH RECEIVED FROM HIS FATHER. THE LD.A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE A SSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED RS.20,00,000/- (RS.2,00,000/- IN AUGUST, 2009 AND 3 ITA NO.1128/PUN/2018 RS.18,00,000/- IN SEPTEMBER, 2009) BEFORE THE DEATH OF HIS FATHER. THE REMAINING AMOUNT I.E., RS.1,50,000/- WAS DEPOSITED IN JAN UARY AND FEBRUARY, 2010. THE LD.A.R. CONTENDED THAT THE AO R EJECTED EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE OUTRIGHTLY WITHOU T EVEN VERIFYING THE FACTS. THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DT.31.10.2012 BEFORE CIT(A). IN FIRST APPELLATE PROCE EDINGS, THE ASSESSEE MADE ELABORATE SUBMISSIONS GIVING DETAILS OF AGRICU LTURAL LAND OWNED BY HIS FATHER, INCOME EARNED FROM AGRICULTURAL A CTIVITIES DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 TO 2010-11. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS SUBMISSI ONS. THE CIT(A) SOUGHT REMAND REPORT ON ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED. THE CIT(A) PROCEEDED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE A FTER WAITING FOR REMAND REPORT FOR A LONG TIME. THE AO DID NOT REBUT THE EXPLANATION AND THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN R EMAND PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, THEY HAVE TO BE ADMITTED AS TR UE AND CORRECT. THE LD.A.R. SUBMITTED THAT CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF A SSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH NEXUS BETWEEN THE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK AND THE AGRICULTURE INCOM E OF HIS FATHER. THE LD.A.R. ASSERTED THAT ONCE THE EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE AO AND T HERE IS NO CONTRARY MATERIAL RECORD THE SAME HAVE TO BE ACCEPTED IN TOTO. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, SHRI RAJESH GAWALI REPRESENTING TH E DEPARTMENT VEHEMENTLY DEFENDED THE ORDER OF CIT(A). THE LD.D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH COGENT EVIDENCE ESTABLISHING THE LINK BETWEEN AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND HUGE C ASH 4 ITA NO.1128/PUN/2018 DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE. THE LD.D.R. PRA YED FOR UPHOLDING THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF REPRESENTATIVES OF RIV AL SIDES AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE S OLITARY ISSUE RAISED IN APPEAL IS AGAINST CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.21,50,0 00/- U/S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF ASSESSE E. AS PER THE CONTENTIONS OF ASSESSEE, CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCO UNT IS THE INCOME OF FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE FROM AGRICULTURE OPERAT IONS CARRIED OUT IN THE PAST 4 - 5 YEARS. OSTENSIBLY, THE FATHER OF ASSESSEE OWNED APPROXIMATELY 36 ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED COPIES OF 7/12 EXTRACTS TO SHOW THE OWNERSHIP OF THE LAN D AND THE AGRICULTURE PRODUCE IN THE PAST YEARS. THE CIT(A) SOUGHT REPOR T FROM THE AO ON THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE AO FAILED TO COMMENT UPON THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AND THUS, NO REMAND REPORT WAS FILED FOR CONSIDERABLE PERIOD OF TIME BEFOR E THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) DECIDED THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IN THE A BSENCE OF ANY COMMENTS FROM THE AO. THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITIO N WITHOUT VERIFYING THE VERACITY OF THE STATEMENT OF ASSESS EE AND HIS CLAIM OF AGRICULTURE INCOME. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ENTIRE TY OF FACTS, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO RESTORE THE ISSUE TO TH E FILE OF AO TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE ASSESSEES CLAIM. THE AO W HILE DECIDING THE ISSUE AFRESH SHALL CONSIDER ALL DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FILED BY ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM AND SHALL GRANT REASONAB LE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW. 5 ITA NO.1128/PUN/2018 THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS SET ASIDE AND THE APPEAL OF THE A SSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON WEDNESDAY, THE 16 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019. SD/- SD/- (R.S. SYAL) (VIKA S AWASTHY ) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMB ER PUNE; DATED : 16 TH JANUARY, 2019. YAMINI '#$%&'& $ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. 4. 5 6. CIT(A)-3, PUNE. PR. CIT-2, PUNE. '#$ %%&',)&', *+ / DR, ITAT, SMC PUNE; $-.// GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // 012%3&4 / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY )&', / ITAT, PUNE.