Somnath Chakraborty, Kolkata V. ACIT, Circle-46, Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 135/KOL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0854 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-12-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 20-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 28-01-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANAND R BAIWAR
• Section: 143(3); 142(1)

Judgement Text

SOMNATH CHAKRABORTY I.T.A NO.135/KOL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 PAGE | 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH: KOL KATA BEFORE: SHRI P. M. JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A NO.135/KOL/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11) SOMNATH CHAKRABORTY APPELLANT [PAN: AGOPC 9135 C] VS A.C.I.T, CIR-46, KOLKATA RESPONDENT FOR THE APPELLANT : SHRI RAJEEV KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT : SHRI ANAND R. BAIWAR, CIT-DR DATE OF HEARING : 11.09.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06.12.2017 ORDER SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31.10.2014 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A)-XXX, KOLKATA FOR A.Y 2010-11. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE COVERING ALL THE GROUNDS RAISED I S TO BE DECIDED IS AS TO WHETHER THE CIT-A IS JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMI NG THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO WITHOUT HAVING GIVEN PROPER OPPORTUNITY T O THE ASSESSEE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND ENGAGED IN CONTRACTUAL JOBS. THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,55, 210/- AND NOTICES U/S. 143(2) AND 142(1) OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED. IN R ESPONSE TO WHICH, AN AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSES SEE APPEARED FROM TIME TO TIME. SOMNATH CHAKRABORTY I.T.A NO.135/KOL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 PAGE | 2 4. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO FOUND THE CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.48,35,000/-,RS.1,13,22,850/- AN D RS.20,61,320/- IN ASSESSEES SAVING BANK ACCOUNTS WITH ING VYSYA B ANK, DHANALAKSHIM BANK LTD AND ICICI BANK RESPECTIVELY. ACCORDING TO AO, THESE THREE BANK ACCOUNTS WERE NOT DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND NOT REFLECTED IN THE INCOME AND EXPENDIT URE ACCOUNTS AND BALANCE SHEET. FOR NOT PRODUCING THE BOOKS OF ACCOU NT AND CORROBORATING EVIDENCES, THE AO ISSUED ABOVE NOTICE U/S. 142(1) OF THE ACT. IN RESPONSE TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE FILED LE TTER DT. 14-03-2013 STATING THAT APART FROM HIS CONTRACTUAL JOB, HE ALS O INVOLVED IN ACTING AS AN ENTRY OPERATOR TO OBLIGE PARTIES WHO WANTED C HEQUE AGAINST CASH. FOR WHICH, HE WOULD GET 20 -25 PAISE PER RS.1 00 AS COMMISSION AND ADMITTED NON OFFERING OF SAID COMMISSION AS HIS INCOME IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, BUT, HOWEVER, OFFERED AN ADDITION AL INCOME OF RS.45,548/- @ 25 PAISE ON TOTAL CASH DEPOSITS OF RS .1,82,19,170/-. THE AO FOUND THAT THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE W ERE NOT ACCEPTABLE AND HE WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSES SEE DID NOT VOLUNTARILY DISCLOSE THE SAID THREE BANK ACCOUNTS A ND FOR NOT EXPLAINING THE SOURCE OF SUCH HUGE CASH DEPOSITS, T HE AO TREATED THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SAME AND ACCORDINGLY , THE AO DETERMINED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.1,84,19 ,930/- AS AGAINST RS.1,55,210/- VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 26.03.20 13 U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. 5. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PURSUED HIS CASE BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHEREIN THE CIT(A) DISMISSED THE GROUNDS BY OBSERVI NG THAT THE THREE BANK ACCOUNTS WERE NOT VOLUNTARILY DISCLOSED, THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS AMOUNTING TO RS.1,82,19,170/- WAS NOT DISCLOSED AND THE TRANSACTION DETAILS IN THE FORM OF DOCUMENTS, P APERS OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE NOT FURNISHED TO THE AO. THE CIT(A) A LSO OPINED THAT THE AO HAS NOT LOGICALLY PURSUED THE MATTER BY ENQU IRIES INTO THE IDENTITIES OF THE BENEFICIARIES. SOMNATH CHAKRABORTY I.T.A NO.135/KOL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 PAGE | 3 6. THE LD.AR SUBMITS THAT THERE WAS NO PROPER OPPOR TUNITY FOR THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN ABOUT HUGE CASH DEPOSITS BEFORE THE AO AND IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION REFERRED TO PARA NO-3. TH E LD.AR ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE CIT-A ALSO FOUND THE AO DID NO T ENQUIRE INTO THE IDENTITIES OF THE BENEFICIARIES AND REFERRED TO PAR A NO.3.2 OF CIT(A) AND ARGUED, IN VIEW OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES ABOVE BEFO RE THE AO AND CIT(A) PRAYED TO REMAND THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF A O. THE LD.AR ALSO ENSURED THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD PROSECUTE HIS CASE PROPERLY WITHOUT SEEKING ANY ADJOURNMENTS. THE LD. DR OPPOSED THE SA ME AND ARGUED THAT INSPITE OF HAVING MANY OPPORTUNITIES THE ASSES SEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF HUGE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE AFO RESAID BANK ACCOUNTS BY FURNISHING PROPER EVIDENCES AND BOOKS O F ACCOUNTS BEFORE THE AO AND CIT-A. THEREFORE, THE ORDER PASSE D BY THE CIT(A) IS CORRECT AND PRAYED TO DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. HEARD BOTH PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVA ILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERVED FROM THE RECORD THAT THE ASS ESSEE REPLIED TO THE NOTICE U/SEC 142(1) OF THE ACT BY WAY OF LETTER DT: 14-03-2013 STATING THAT APART FROM HIS CONTRACTUAL JOB, HE ALSO INVOLV ED IN ACTING AS AN ENTRY OPERATOR TO OBLIGE PARTIES WHO WANTED CHEQUE AGAINST CASH. FOR WHICH, HE WOULD GET 20 -25 PAISE PER RS.100/- AS CO MMISSION AND ADMITTED NON OFFERING OF SAID COMMISSION AS HIS INC OME IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, BUT, HOWEVER, OFFERED AN ADDITIONAL INCO ME OF RS.45,548/- @ 25 PAISE ON TOTAL CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.1,82,19,170 /-. WE FIND FROM PARA NO-3 OF THE AOS ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE DID N OT EXPLAIN HUGE CASH DEPOSITS AS WELL AS THE TRANSACTIONS ENTERED I NTO BANK ACCOUNTS BY FURNISHING ANY DETAILED EVIDENCES BEFORE THE AO. BUT, HOWEVER, IT IS SEEN FROM THE RECORD THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT TH E AO COULD NOT PURSUE THE MATTER BY INITIATING ENQUIRIES INTO THE IDENTITIES OF THE BENEFICIARIES AND IT GOES SHOW THAT THE AO DID NOT CONDUCT PROCEEDINGS PROPERLY AND TREATING THE ASSESSEE AS F AILED TO GIVE PROPER EXPLANATION IS IMPROPER. SINCE THERE WAS NO SATISFACTORY SOMNATH CHAKRABORTY I.T.A NO.135/KOL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 PAGE | 4 EXPLANATION AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, TAKING INTO CONSIDE RATION THE SAME TOGETHER WITH ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOS ED INCOME, IN OUR OPINION, IT REQUIRES A PROPER EXPLANATION TO THE SA TISFACTION OF AO AND IN VIEW OF THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. AR AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES EMANATING FROM THE RECORD, IN THE INT EREST OF JUSTICE WE DEEM IT PROPER TO REMAND THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF AO FOR HIS FRESH ADJUDICATION. THE ASSESSEE IS IN LIBERTY TO FILE EV IDENCES, IF ANY, IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM AND SHALL CO-OPERATE WITH THE AO IN DISPOSING THE ASSESSMENT AS EXPEDITIOUSLY AS POSSIBLE. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 06.12.2017. SD/- SD/- P. M. JAGTAP S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED :06.12.2017 PLACE : KOLKATA RS(SPS) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT SOMNATH CHAKRABORTY, 2 ND FLOOR, ROOM NO.218, 7 GRANT LANE, KOLKATA 700 012. 2 RESPONDENT ACIT, CIRCLE 46, 3, GOVT. PLACE (WEST ), 2 ND FLOOR, KOLKATA 1. 3 . THE CIT(A), KOLKATA 4. 5. CIT , KOLKATA DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER, SR.PS/H.O.O ITAT, KOLKATA