ITO, Jaipur V. SHRI PANKAJ AGARWAL, Jaipur

ITA 1382/JPR/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 47985 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-07-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 02-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ROSHANTA MEENA
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

1 ITA 1382-10 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH A JAIPUR BEFORE SHRI R.K. GUPTA AND SHRI N.L. KALRA ITA NO. 1382/JP/2010 ASSTT. YEAR : 2007-08. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, VS. SHRI PANKAJ AGARWAL, WARD 4(2), PROP. M/S. R.N. ENTERPRISES, JAIPUR. VINAYAK TOWER, CENTRAL SPINE, VIDHYADHAR NAGAR, JAIPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : MS. ROSHANTA MEENA RESPONDENT BY : NONE ORDER DATE OF ORDER : 14/07/2011. PER R.K. GUPTA, J.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL BY DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. THE DEPARTMENT IS OBJECTING IN DELETING THE ADDI TION OF RS. 14,00,000/- MADE BY AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED FDRS BY ADMITTING ADDI TIONAL EVIDENCES IN VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF IT RULES. THE DEPARTMENT IS ALSO OBJEC TING IN DELETING ADDITION OF RS. 4,00,000/- MADE BY AO UNDER SECTION 68 BY ADMITTIN G ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES IN VIOLATION OF RULE 46A. 3. THE LD. D/R WHO APPEARED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL PLA CED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF AO. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL IS BEING DISPOSED OFF AFTER CONSIDERING THE ORDERS OF AO AND LD. CIT (A). 2 5. REGARDING DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 14,00,000/ -, IT IS NOTICED THAT IN BANK ACCOUNT THERE WERE DEPOSIT AGGREGATING RS.14,08,846 /- WERE REFLECTED. WHEN THE SOURCE OF THESE FDRS WAS ENQUIRED THEN ASSESSEE CLARIFIED THAT THESE CREDIT ENTRIES WERE OUT OF MATURITY OF THE FIXED DEPOSITS. HOWEVER, IN ABSENCE OF DETAIL OF THESE THREE FDRS AND PERIOD OF INVESTMENT, AO CONSIDERED SUCH CREDITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AS FROM UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING LY THE IMPUGNED ADDITION WAS MADE. 6. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE LD. CIT (A) THAT THE AO WAS CLARIFIED THAT THESE CREDIT ARE ON ACCOUNT OF MATURITY OF FDRS WHICH WERE OBTAINED IN EARLIER YEAR AND INVESTMENT HAS ALREADY BEEN EXPLAINED. IT WAS FURTHER CLARIFIED T HAT MATURITY PROCEEDS OF RS. 4,01,260/-, RS. 5,04,325/- AND RS. 5,00,000/- WERE CREDITED IN THE BANK ON 27.6.2006, 29.8.2006 AND 12.6.2006 RESPECTIVELY. THE INVESTMENTS IN THE BAN K WERE MADE OUT OF WITHDRAWAL FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF M/S. R.N. ENTERPRISES WHICH IS A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE. COPY OF ACCOUNT OF M/S. R.N. ENTERPRISES WAS ALSO FILED. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE FDRS WERE OBTAINED IN EARLIER PERIOD AND FDRS WERE SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS, T HE LD. CIT (APPEALS) GAVE FOLLOWING FINDINGS :- I HAVE CONSIDERED FACTS OF THE CASE AND ARGUMENT S TAKEN BY SH.JAIN QUITE CAREFULLY. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE A FORESAID EVIDENCE AS FURNISHED BY SH. JAIN IT IS CLEAR THAT THE AFORESAI D CREDIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WAS DUE TO MATURITY PROCEEDS OF FDR AND SOU RCES FOR THE INVESTMENT IN THESE THREE FDRS ARE PROPERLY AND FUL LY EXPLAINED. HOWEVER, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT S HOWN SUCH INTEREST INCOME OF RS.8,846/- IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED WHICH IS ADMITTED ALSO BY SH. JAIN IN HIS SUBMISSION AND THEREFORE, BY RE TAINING THE ADDITION OF RS. 8,846/- THE REMAINING ADDITION OF RS. 14 LACS I S HEREBY DELETED. 3 7. THE LD. D/R NEITHER COULD CONTROVERT THE ABOVE F INDINGS OF LD. CIT (A) NOR ANY SUBMISSION WERE MADE ABOUT ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES THAT WHAT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE LD. CIT (A). T HE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT (A) ARE FINDING OF FACT. THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THEY DO NOT REQUIRE ANY INTERFERENCE. ACCORDINGLY, WE CONFIRM THE FINDING OF LD. CIT (A) IN THIS REGARD. 8. NEXT ISSUE RELATES TO DELETING THE ADDITION OF R S. 4,00,000/-. 9. THE AO NOTICED THAT THERE WERE CERTAIN CASH DEPO SIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AND SINCE APPARENTLY THERE WERE NO SOURCE FOR THE CASH DEPOSI T OF RS. 1,00,000/- ON 1.7.2006 AND ANOTHER DEPOSIT OF RS. 3,00,000/- ON 17.7.2006, THE REFORE, THE AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 4,00,000/-. IT WAS ARGUED BEFORE LD. CIT (A) THAT THIS AMOUNT WAS WITHDRAWN ON THE SAME DATE BY DEBITING THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IN PRO PRIETORSHIP CONCERN OF M/S. R.N. ENTERPRISES FOR WHICH A COPY OF ACCOUNT WAS FURNISH ED BEFORE AO AS WELL AS BEFORE LD. CIT (A). ACCORDINGLY IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE W AS NO REASON TO MAKE ANY ADDITION. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS, THE LD. CIT (A) FOUND THAT THERE ARE CASH WITHDRAWALS EXACTLY ON THE SAME DAY FROM THE PROPRIETORSHIP CON CERN, NAMELY M/S. R.N. ENTERPRISES AND, THEREFORE, SOURCE OF THESE DEPOSITS ARE FULLY EXPLAINED. ACCORDINGLY, ADDITION MADE BY AO WAS DELETED BY LD. CIT (A). 10. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND LD. CIT (A), AGAIN WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE FINDING OF LD. CIT (A). IN THE ACCOUNT OF M /S. R. N. ENTERPRISES THIS AMOUNT WAS DEBITED IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE WHO HAS SHOWN WITHD RAWAL OF RS. 4,00,000/- FROM HIS PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN AND DEPOSITED IN THE BANK AC COUNT. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THERE WAS A CASH BALANCE IN M/S. R.N. ENTERPRISES, COPY O F ACCOUNT WAS ALSO FILED BEFORE AO AS WELL AS BEFORE LD. CIT (A). THEREFORE, IN OUR VIEW , THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING 4 THIS ADDITION AND LD. CIT (A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELE TING THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) ON THIS ISSUE ALSO. 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS DISM ISSED. 12. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14 .07.2011. SD/- SD/- ( N.L. KALRA ) ( R.K. GUPTA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JAIPUR, D/- COPY FORWARDED TO :- THE ITO WARD 4(2), JAIPUR. SHRI PANKAJ AGARWAL, JAIPUR. THE CIT (A) THE CIT THE D/R GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 1382/JP/2010) BY ORDER, AR ITAT JAIPUR.