The ITO-1(2), Indore V. Shri Subhash Laad, Indore

ITA 133/IND/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1934 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 13-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA
• Assessee Lawyers: C P RAWKA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, J.M. AND SHRI B.C.MEENA, A.M. I.T.A.NO.133/IND/2013 A.Y. : 2008-09 ITO, SHRI SUBHASH LAAD, 1(2), VS. INDORE. INDORE APPELLANT RESPONDENT PAN NO. AAALPL5025D APPELLANT BY : SHRI R.A.VERMA, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI C.P.RAWKA, C. A. DATE OF HEARING : 07.07.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19 . 0 8 .201 5 -: 2: - 2 O R D E R PER GARASIA, J.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-I, INDORE, DATED 12.12.2013 FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. THE SHORT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE W AS HAVING BALANCE OF RS. 16,75,000/- IN HIS BANK ACCOU NT. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE THE SOURCE OF THE BAL ANCE IN HIS ACCOUNT. THE AO STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT HA VING SUFFICIENT FUND IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND IN THE BANK, THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING HUGE CASH OF RS. 16.75 LACS. TH E ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THIS AMOUNT IN THE BANK. 3. THE MATTER CARRIED TO LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) HA S DELETED THE ADDITION. 4. THE LD. SENIOR D.R. RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF AO. TH E LD. SENIOR D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAV ING IN THE BANK RS. 19,75,000/- IN HIS BANK. THE AO HAS TRIED TO VERIFY AS TO THE SOURCE OF THE CASH FROM WHERE IT HAS COME INTO BANK. THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN A CONTENTION THAT THE ASSESS EE HAD -: 3: - 3 CASH IN HAND AT RS. 13,16,873/- AND IT WAS OPENING BALANCE, BUT THE CLOSING BALANCE AND OPENING BALANCE OF THIS YEAR CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS THAT AMOUNT IS TREATED TO B E EXPLAINED. WE FIND THAT IF THAT AMOUNT IS OF EARLIE R YEARS, IT MUST BE SUPPORTED BY TAX RECORDS AND IF IT IS NOT S UPPORTED BY THE TAX RECORDS, IT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED THAT IT IS EXPLAINED. THE LD. SENIOR D.R. RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF IND ORE BENCH IN I.T.(SS).A.NOS. 210 TO 216. THE LD. SENIOR D.R. HAS SUBMITTED THE COPY OF THE TRIBUNALS DECISION IN I. T.(SS).A.NOS. 216/IND/2007 IN THE CASE OF S.K.JAIN & OTHERS VS. C IT AND RELYING UPON THAT JUDGEMENT, THE LD. SENIOR D.R. SU BMITTED THAT IN THAT JUDGEMENT, THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF OPENING BALANCE OF EARLIER Y EARS ON THE GROUND THAT THIS AMOUNT WAS SHOWN AS OPENING CAPITA L OF EARLIER YEARS. THE LD. SENIOR D.R. SUBMITTED THAT A S PER THIS DECISION IF IT IS A CAPITAL OF EARLIER YEARS, THE A DDITION HAS TO BE CONFIRMED. 5. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). -: 4: - 4 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES. LOOKING TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS FILING THE RETURN FRO M THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 TO 2008-09 AND HE HAS ALSO FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THESE YEARS. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED THE CONFIRMATION LETTER THAT HE HAS RECEIVED THE AM OUNT FROM HIS MOTHER. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE RE TURN FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE WAS H AVING CASH BALANCE OF RS. 13.16 LACS AND HE WAS HAVING CA PITAL OF RS. 15.97 LACS ON 31.3.2007. THIS FACT WAS WITH THE DEPARTMENT AND THE COMMISSIONER HAS VERIFIED ALL TH ESE FACTS AND DELETED THIS ADDITION. THEREFORE, OUR INTERFERE NCE IS NOT REQUIRED. 7. THE LD. SENIOR D.R. HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF INDORE TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL IN THAT CASE HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONTENDED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL THAT HE HAD OPENING BALANCE OF EARLIER YEARS, BUT THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED THE RETURN FOR EARL IER YEARS. THEREFORE, WITHOUT ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, THE AS SESSEES CLAIM WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE TRIBUNAL. IN THE INST ANT CASE, -: 5: - 5 THE ASSESSEE WAS FILING THE RETURN OF EARLIER YEARS AND THIS FACT HAS BEEN SUPPORTED BY THE CAPITAL AND BALANCE SHEET FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RELY ING UPON THIS DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, DELETED THIS ADDITION. T HEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS DECISION WILL NOT HELP FUL TO THE REVENUE. 8. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. SENIOR D.R. COULD NOT BRING ANY CONTRARY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE A GAINST THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE, WE CONFIR M THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A). 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED. THIS ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19 TH AUGUST, 2015. SD/- (B. C. MEENA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- ( D.T.GARASIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 19 TH AUGUST, 2015. CPU* 16.7