Kamal Kishore Jhanwar, MAKRANA V. ITO, MAKRANA

ITA 117/JODH/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 11723314 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-07-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 24-07-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 26-02-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N A JOSHI
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 6; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOMETAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH: J ODHPUR ( BEFORE SHRI H ARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ) ITA NO S . 1 1 6 & 117 / JODH /201 4 (A.Y S . 2006 - 07 & 200 7 - 0 8 ) KAMAL KISHORE JHANWAR , VS THE INCOME - TAX OFFICER P /O M/S CLASSIC MARBLES WARD - 1, MAKRANA MAKRANA PAN NO. AATPJ 0223H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE S BY : - SHRI SURESH OJHA DEPARTMENT BY : - SHRI N.A JOSHI - D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 2 4 /0 7 /201 4 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30 /0 7 /2014 O R D E R P E R HARI OM MARATHA, JM : - THESE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR A.YS. 200 6 - 07 AND 200 7 - 08 ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A) PASSED ON THE SAME DATE I.E. 24.10.2013. I N BOTH THE APPEALS, IDENTICAL ISSUES ARE INVOLVED. THEREFORE, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE 2 AND BREVITY, WE ARE DISPOSING THEM OFF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY. ITA NO. 116/JU/2014 2. THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THIS APPEAL: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) JODHPUR HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 147/148 OF THE INCOME - TAX. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) JODHPUR HAS ERRED I N CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,88,010/ - . 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) JODHPUR HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1 , 88 , 010/ - IN THE HANDS OF THE INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY INSTEAD OF HUF. ITA NO. 11 7 /JU/2014 2. THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THIS APPEAL: 3 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) JODHPUR HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 147/148 OF THE INCOME - TAX. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) JODHPUR HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1, 50 , 54 0/ - . 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) JODHPUR HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1 , 50 , 54 0/ - IN THE HANDS OF THE INDIVIDUAL CAPA CITY INSTEAD OF HUF. 3. TO START WITH AND WITH A VIEW TO UNDERSTAND THE COMMON ISSUE RELATING TO ADDITIONS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS AFTER TREATING THE SAME AS SALES MADE OUT OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WE NARRATE THE FACTS OBTAINING IN BOTH THE AP PEALS. AS PER THE AIR DATE RECEIVED BY THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2, AJMER, DEPOSIT OF RS. 12,85,100/ - IN THE SAVING BANK ACCOUNT IN IDBI BANK LTD, KISHANGARH WAS FOUND, WHICH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO BELONG TO HIS HUF BUSINESS AND HE BEING K ARTA OF HUF ACCOUNT, WAS OPENED IN HIS OWN NAME. IN A.Y. 2007 - 08, SIMILARLY A DEPOSIT IN THE PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK IS OF RS. 10,29,000/ - . THE ASSESSEE MADE SIMILAR CLAIM REGARDING THIS AMOUNT ALSO. BUT THE A.O WAS NOT SATISFIED IN BOTH THE YEARS AND HAS HELD THESE DEPOSITS A S OUT OF 4 UNRECORDED SALES AND AFTER APPLYING RATE OF 14.63%, HAS MADE THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS IN THE RESPECTIVE A.YS. THE A.O HAD MADE ENQUIRIES FROM THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE, MAKRANA, WHO REPORTED THAT THE ASSESSEE BEING PROPRIETOR OF M/S CLASSI C MARBLE, MAKRANA HAD BEEN FILING HIS RETURN OF INCOME IN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND THESE SALES AMOUNT MATCHED WITH THE SALES SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE DEPARTMENT IN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. 4. THE CASE OF THE LD. A.R IS THAT THIS EVIDENCE WAS NEVER CONFRO NTED TO THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND PRAYED THAT EITHER THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS BE DELETED OR THE MATTER GO BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A.O SO THAT EVIDENCE IN QUESTION CAN BE CONFRONTED WITH THE ASSESSEE AND THEREAFTER PLAUSIBLE VIEW CAN BE TAKEN. HE HAS ASSERTED THAT THESE DEPOSITS BELONGED TO ASSESSEES HUF AND NOT TO HIM AS AN INDIVIDUAL. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5 6. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE HAVE FOUND IT FOR A FIT CASE FOR RESTORING THE SAME TO THE FILE OF THE A.O IN BOTH THE A.YS. AFTER SETTING ASIDE THE APPELLATE FINDING. THE A.O SHALL REMAKE THE ASSESSMENT IN RESPECT OF THIS ISSUE AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 7. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE STAND ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH JULY, 2014.) SD/ - SD/ - (N.K. SA INI) (HARI OM MARATHA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 30 TH JULY, 2014. VL/ - COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT BY ORDER THE CIT(A) THE DR SENIOR PERSONAL SECRETARY ITAT, JODHPUR