Goutamchand Saklecha HUF , Bangalore V. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 4(3)(1), Bangalore

ITA 1337/BANG/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7235 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 12-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIKAS SURYAWANSHI ADDITIONAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ROHIT G
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC-A BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1337/BANG/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 GOUTAMCHAND SAKLECHA, HUF, NO. 1108, 13 TH CROSS, II STAGE, INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560038. PAN : AAEHG 3226 N VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(3)(1), BMTC BUILDING, 80FT ROAD, 6 TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU 560 095. APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI. ROHIT. G, CA REVENUE BY : SHRI. VIKAS SURYAWANSHI, ADDITIONAL CIT DATE OF HEARING : 13.11.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17.11.2017 O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST T HE ORDER OF CIT(A), INTERALIA , ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: GROUND 1: THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER ( AP PEALS ) HAVE NEITHER APPRECIATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE TRUE SPIRI T NOR EXAMINED THE EXPLANATIONS / STATEMENTS FILED BY THE APPELLANT JU DICIOUSLY, BUT INSTEAD PASSED THE ORDER/(S) IN HASTE WITHOUT GIVING DUE IM PORTANCE TO THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES PRODUCED B EFORE THEM. GROUND 2: THE AUTHORITIES BELOW FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE CASH RECEIPTS OF REPAYMENT OF INSTALMENT OF LOAN FROM PERSONS TO WHO M LOANS WERE ADVANCED IN LIEU OF DISHONOURED CHEQUES ISSUED BY T HEM HAVE BEEN TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.7,1 2,500/-. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [APPEALS] 1, IS NOT JU STIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ITA NO. 1337/BANG/2017 PAGE 2 OF 3 GROUND 3: THE AUTHORITIES BELOW FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE CASH WITHDRAWAL OF RS.6,39,000/- MADE BY S. GOUTAMCHAND (KARTHA) AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF S. GOUTAMCHAND SAKLECHA HUF AND NOT IN INDIVIDUAL CAPA CITY SUBSEQUENTLY DEPOSITED INTO THE BANK ON 21.01.2012 TREATED AS UN EXPLAINED CASH CREDITS IS UNJUST AND HAS BEEN WRONGLY CONSTRUED BY THE AO AND LEARNED CIT(A) JUST TO MEET THE ENDS OF THE REVENUE. IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT WE MAY BE PERMITT ED TO ADD, DELETE AND / OR PUT FORWARD ANY OTHER GROUNDS AND FACTS OF APPEAL A ND OTHER RELATED POINTS AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 2. THOUGH VARIOUS GROUNDS ARE RAISED IN THIS APPE AL, BUT THEY ALL RELATE TO THE UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT FOUND IN THE BANK ACCOUNT O F THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN VITED OUR ATTENTION THAT HAVING NOTED THE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AT RS.12,40,000/-, THE AO MADE AN ADDITION OF THE SAME AFTER REJECTING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE CASH WAS DEPOSITED OUT OF THE REPAYMENT OF SUMS ADVANCED TO VARIOUS DEBTORS A T RS.7,12,500/- AND RS.6,39,000/- WITHDRAWN FROM THE ASSESSEES SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT. 3. ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) A ND PLACED THE RELEVANT EVIDENCES TO JUSTIFY THE WITHDRAWAL AND THE REPAYME NT OF SUM ADVANCED, BUT CIT(A) DID NOT APPRECIATE THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US AND DURING THE COURSE OF HEAR ING, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE IN VIJAYA BANK AND KARUR VYSYA BANK (NOW KARUR VYSYA BANK LIMITED). H E MADE A WITHDRAWAL OF RS.6,39,000/- ON 08.11.2011. BESIDES, HE HAS ALSO RECEIVED THE REPAYMENT OF LOAN IN CASH FROM HIS EARLIER DEBTORS WHEN THE CHEQUE WAS B OUNCED. OUT OF THE WITHDRAWALS FROM ITS BANK ACCOUNTS AND THE CASH RECEIVED FROM I TS DEBTORS, DEPOSITS WERE MADE IN ITA NO. 1337/BANG/2017 PAGE 3 OF 3 THE BANK. THE BANK STATEMENTS DETAILING THE RETURN OF CHEQUE, WITHDRAWAL OF CASH AND ALSO DEPOSIT OF CASH IS AVAILABLE IN THE COMPILATIO N FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. COPY OF THE PRONOTES EVIDENCING THE ADVANCE OF LOAN TO VARIOUS DEBTORS. 4. HAVING CAREFULLY PERUSED ALL THESE EVIDENCES, I FIND FORCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT CASH WAS DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE OU T OF THE PAST WITHDRAWALS AND THE REPAYMENT OF LOAN IN CASH BUT THESE EVIDENCES WERE NOT PROPERLY EXAMINED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. SINCE IT REQUIRES A VERIFICATION OF T HE FACTS, I SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH A DIRECTION TO EXAMINE THE EVIDENCES RELATING TO WITHDRAWAL FROM THE BANKS AND THE RECEIPT OF CASH ON NON ENCASHMENT OF CHEQUES. ACCORDINGLY, THE MATTER IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO READJUDICATE THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER AFFORDING OPPOR TUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE IN TERMS INDICATED ABOVE. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON NOVEMBER, 201 7. SD/- (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER PLACE : BANGALORE DATED : 17/11/2017 /NSHYLU/* COPY TO : 1 APPELLANT 2 RESPONDENT 3 CIT(A)-II BANGALORE 4 CIT 5 DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6 GUARD FILE BY ORDER SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY, ITAT, BANGALORE.