Sri. Prashant Singh, Bangalore V. ITO, Bangalore

ITA 133/BANG/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8595 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 21-03-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 10-02-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Additional evidence

Judgement Text

ITA.133/BANG/2015 PAGE - 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH 'B', BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. VIJAYPAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A NO.133/BANG/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) SHRI. PRASHANT SINGH, NO.A 603, CELESTIAL GREEN, NO.6, OLD MADRAS ROAD, OPP. RMZ INFINITY, BANGALORE -560 093 .. APPELLANT PAN : ACCPS0141A V. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 7(4), BANGALORE .. RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI. MALLAHARAO, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SHRI. SARAVANAN. B, JCIT HEARD ON : 21.03.2015 PRONOUNCED ON : 30.0 3.2015 O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : IN THIS APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST A N ORDER DT.26.10.2013 OF CIT (A) (LTU), BANGALORE, IT HAS A LTOGETHER RAISED EIGHT GROUNDS OF WHICH 1, 6 AND 8 ARE GENERAL AND SEVEN I S CONSEQUENTIAL NEEDING NO SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION. ITA.133/BANG/2015 PAGE - 2 02. VIDE ITS GROUNDS 2 TO 5, GRIEVANCE RAISED BY TH E ASSESSEE IS THAT LOANS TOTALING TO RS.4,75,000/- CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RECE IVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM ONE M/S. TISAVI AND MR. GIRISH PARVATIKAR, WER E NOT ACCEPTED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 03. FACTS APROPOS ARE THAT ASSESSEE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF LOAN SERVICING FOR DEUTSCHE BANK AND RUNNING A MARKETING AGENCY OF HUTCHISON ESSAR HAD FILED ITS RETURN FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSM ENT YEAR DECLARING INCOME OF RS.5,57,060/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT WAS NOTED BY THE AO THAT ASSESSEE HAD INTRODUCED AD DITIONAL CAPITAL OF RS.17,26,902/- DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR WH ICH INTER ALIA INCLUDED THE FOLLOWING AMOUNTS : AS PER THE AO ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE SOURCE FOR THE ABOVE CREDITS AND AN ADDITION OF RS.4,75,000/- WAS MADE. 04. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE MOVED IN APPEAL BEFORE THE C IT (A). EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE SUM OF RS. 4,75,000/- STOOD ITA.133/BANG/2015 PAGE - 3 EXPLAINED AS UNDER : 05. CIT (A) OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE C ONFIRMATIONS FROM M/S. TISAVI AND MR. GIRISH PARVATIKAR, EXCEPT FOR A COPY OF THE LEDGER ACCOUNT IN ASSESSEE'S NAME APPEARING IN THE BOOKS O F M/S. TISAVI AND A COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT WITH ICICI BANK. THOUGH ASSES SEE GAVE THE PAN OF M/S. TISAVI WHICH WAS A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN OF ONE SALON BHATIA, AS WELL AS THE PAN OF GIRISH PARVATIKAR, CIT (A) NOTED THAT ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO PRODUCE THE CONFIRMATIONS FROM THE SAID P ARTIES. HOWEVER WITH REGARD TO THE SUM OF RS.60,000/- SHOWN AS TRANSFER FROM HDFC BANK ACCOUNT, CIT (A) NOTED THAT IT HAD COME FROM ASSESS EE'S WIFE WHO WAS AN EMPLOYEE WITH M/S. TEXAS INSTRUMENTS IN THE SENIOR MANAGEMENT CADRE. THUS HE CONFIRMED THE ADDITION EXCEPT FOR THE SUM O F RS.60,000/-, DT.26.10.2007. 06. NOW BEFORE US, LD. AR STRONGLY ASSAILING THE OR DER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES SUBMITTED THAT IT COULD NOT OBTAIN THE CONFIRMATION OF THE M/S. TISAVI AND MR. GIRISH PARVATIKAR, DUE TO REASONS BE YOND ITS CONTROL. AS PER ITA.133/BANG/2015 PAGE - 4 THE LD. AR ASSESSEE WAS OF THE IMPRESSION THAT THES E DOCUMENTS WERE AVAILABLE AND FILED. LD. AR SOUGHT ADMISSION OF AD DITIONAL EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF CONFIRMATION LETTERS AND COPY OF LEDGER ACC OUNTS OF M/S. TISAVI. AN APPLICATION UNDER RULE 29 OF ITAT RULES, 1963, WAS ALSO FILED. ACCORDING TO HIM, IF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS NOT CONSIDER ED, GENUINE LOANS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE CONSIDERED AS HIS INCOME. 7. PER CONTRA, LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE WAS UNAB LE TO SHOW AS TO WHY HE COULD NOT FILE CONFIRMATION LETTERS BEFORE T HE LOWER AUTHORITIES. ACCORDING TO THE LD. DR THESE ADDITIONS WERE JUSTIF IED. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. ASSESSEE HAD EXPLAINED THAT THE SUM OF RS.3,15,000/ - HAD COME FROM M/S. TISAVI AND RS.1 LAKH HAD COME FROM GIRISH PARVATIKA R. ASSESSEE HAD INDEED PRODUCED SOME EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF ICICI BANK ACCOUNT OF GIRISH PARVATIKAR AND LEDGER COPY OF THE ASSESSEE A PPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF M/S. TISAVI BEFORE THE CIT (A). CIT (A) HAD NOT AC CEPTED THESE BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO PRODUCE CONFIRMATIONS FR OM THE SAID PARTIES AND ALSO FOR THE REASON THAT THE BANK ACCOUNT OF GIRISH PARVATIKAR DID NOT HAVE SIGNIFICANT BALANCES THEREIN. BEFORE US ASSESSEE P LEADS FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF CONFIRMATION LET TERS OF THE CONCERNED ITA.133/BANG/2015 PAGE - 5 PARTIES. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT IN THE INTERES T OF JUSTICE, MATTER REQUIRES A FRESH LOOK BY THE AO. ASSESSEE IN OUR OPINION, S HOULD BE GIVEN ONE MORE CHANCE FOR EXPLAINING THE LOANS FROM M/S. TISAVI AN D MR. GIRISH PARVATIKAR. WE THEREFORE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORIT IES AND REMIT THESE ISSUES BACK TO THE FILE OF AO FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH AS PER LAW. ASSESSEE SHALL BE GIVEN FAIR OPPORTUNITY FOR FILING THE DETAILS AND S UBSTANTIATING ITS EXPLANATION. 9. IN THE RESULT ASSESSEE'S APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STAT ISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2016. SD/- SD/- (VIJAY PAL RAO) (ABRA HAM P GEORGE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER