Natwarlal Chhaganlal Solanki, Morbi V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(4), Morbi

ITA 138/RJT/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1091 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-05-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 28-05-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 25-02-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AVINASH KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: DM RINDANI

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH , RAJKOT BEFORE SHRI SHAILEND RA K UMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI N. S. SAINI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . ITA. NO. 138 / RJT /20 14 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 9 - 1 0 ) NATWARLAL CHHAGANLAL SOLANKI MAHE NDRA NAGAR, MORBI APPELLANT VS. THE I.T.O. WARD - 5(4), MORBI RESPONDENT PAN: AVKPS7278P / BY APPELLANT : SHRI D. M. RINDANI, C.A. / BY RESPONDENT : SHRI AVINASH KUMAR, D.R. / DATE OF HEARING : 28 .0 5 .2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29 . 0 5 .2015 I T A NO. 1 38 / RJT / 1 4 A.Y. 200 9 - 1 0 [ NATWARLAL CHHAGANLAL SOLANKI VS. IT O ] PAGE 2 ORDER PER SHAILENDR A KUMAR YADAV, J.M: TH I S APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - IV , RAJKOT , DATED 02 . 0 1 . 20 1 4 FOR A.Y. 200 9 - 1 0 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUND S . 1. T HE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN CONFIRMING ADDITI ON OF RS.2,02,797/ - . THE ADDITION NEEDS DELETION. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN NOT CONSIDERING THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.2,02,797/ - WAS ALREADY AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE AND WAS NOT LIABLE FOR ADDITION AS CONFIRMED. THE ADDITION NEEDS DELETION. 3. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE LEGAL, STATUTORY, FACTUAL, ACCOUNTING AND ADMINISTRATIVE ASPECTS, NO ADDITION AMOUNTING TO RS.2,02,797/ - OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED. THE ADDITION NEEDS DELETION. 4. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE ADDITION OUGHT TO HA VE BEEN MADE AFTER WORKING OUT THE CORRECT PEAK POSITION IN RESPECT OF AMOUNT OF RS.2,02,797/ - . THE ADDITION CONFIRMED WITHOUT DOING SO NEEDS MODIFICATION. 2. ASSESSEE HAS FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 29.03.2010 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.2,22,090/ - FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) WAS COMPLETED ON 25.11.2011 DETERMINING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.4,24,887/ - AGAINST THE INCOME RETURNED. THE ONLY ADDITION WHICH IS SUBJECT MATTER BEFORE US IN THIS CASE IS WITH REGARDS TO PEAK ADDITI ON OF RS.2,02,797/ - IN BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK, MORBI. I T A NO. 1 38 / RJT / 1 4 A.Y. 200 9 - 1 0 [ NATWARLAL CHHAGANLAL SOLANKI VS. IT O ] PAGE 3 2 . 1 MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY , WHEREIN VARIOUS CONTENTIONS WERE RAISED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE AND HAVING CONSIDERING THE SAME, CIT(A) CONFIRMED T HE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER. SAME HAS BEEN OPPOSED BEFORE US ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE INTER ALIA SUBMITTING THAT CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN NOT CONSIDERING THE AMOUNT OF RS.2,02,797/ - WAS ALREADY AVAILABLE WITH ASSESSEE AND WAS NOT LIABLE FOR ADDITIO N AS CONFIRMED. ACCORDINGLY, ORDER OF CIT(A) BE SET ASIDE, SO ADDITION IN QUESTION BE DELETED. ON OTHER HAND, LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 2 . 2 AFTER GOING THROUGH RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND MATERIAL ON RECORD , WE FIND THAT IT WAS DISCOVERED BY ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ASSESSEE WAS HOLDING A SAVING BANK ACCOUNT WITH KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK, MORBI, WHICH WAS NOT DISCLOSED TO THE DEPARTMENT. BASED ON AIR INFORMATION, ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBTAINED THE DETAILS OF BANK ACCOUNT AND TRANSACTIONS THEREIN. DURING YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED A CASH OF RS.15,09,700/ - BY WAY OF DEPOSITS ON DIFFERENT DATES. AS NO INFORMATION WAS FORTH COMING DURING COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSING OFFICER CONSID ERED THE PEAK CASH CREDIT OF RS.2,02,797/ - ON 19.07.2008 IN THE IMPUGNED BANK ACCOUNT. SAID ADDITION WAS MADE AS UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT. SINCE, ASSESSEE FAILED TO REBUT THE ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER AND IN ABSENCE OF ANY INFORMATION/EVIDENCE I N SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTION, CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING I T A NO. 1 38 / RJT / 1 4 A.Y. 200 9 - 1 0 [ NATWARLAL CHHAGANLAL SOLANKI VS. IT O ] PAGE 4 THE ADDITION IN QUESTION. THIS REASONED FACTUAL FINDING OF CIT(A) NEEDS NOT INTERFERENCE FROM OUR SIDE. WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 3 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSE E IS DISMISSED . PRON OUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 29 TH DAY OF MA Y , 201 5 . SD/ - SD/ - (N. S. SAINI) (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER RAJKOT : DATED 29 /0 5 /2015 TRUE COPY S K SINHA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, RAJKOT . 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR IT AT, RAJKOT