The ITO, Ward-3(4), Surat V. Shri Nazarali Mamad Rangara, Surat

ITA 1398/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 80461 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-11-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 17-09-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 16-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MK SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: SAPNESH SHETH

Judgement Text

, , , , C, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD, C BENCH . .. . . .. . , !' !' !' !', , , , #$ %&'( #$ %&'( #$ %&'( #$ %&'(, , , , )* + ) ' )* + ) ' )* + ) ' )* + ) ' BEFORE S/SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT AND ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA NO.1398/AHD/2011 [ASSTT.YEAR : 2007-2008] ITO, WARD-3(4) SURAT. /VS. SHRI NAZARALI MAMAD RANGARA FLAT NO.9/B-SALIABAD SOCIETY JAHANGIRPURA ROAD ADAJAN, SURAT. PAN : ADTPR 7199 H ( (( ( -. -. -. -. / APPELLANT) ( (( ( /0-. /0-. /0-. /0-. / RESPONDENT) + 1 2 ) / REVENUE BY : SHRI M.K. SINGH, SR.DR 4& 1 2 ) / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SAPNESH SHETH 5 1 &(* / DATE OF HEARING : 17 TH SEPTEMBER, 2014 678 1 &(* / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03/11/2014 )9 / O R D E R PER G.C. GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE FOR THE ASSTT.YEAR 2007-2008 IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 2. THE ONLY GROUND OF THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS AS UNDER: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITI ONS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS IN BANK BY TREATING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD GENUINELY CARRIED OUT T4ADING BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF CLOTH AND HAD DEPOSITED CASH FROM SALE PROCEEDS IN BANK. ITA NO.1398/AHD/2011 -2- 3. THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS N OT CARRIED ANY GENUINE TRADING BUSINESS ACTIVITY AND ADDITION WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT OF THE AS SESSEE. HE REFERRED TO THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN SU PPORT OF THE CASE OF THE REVENUE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO IN PARA-4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS GIVEN FULL DETAILS OF THE AMOUNTS DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. HE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO. 4. THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS OPPOSED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED DR. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN PARA-4 OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS SUMMARIZE D ITS POSITION BY WAY OF A CHART WHICH SHOWS THAT IF THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED THROUGH CHEQUE (WRONGLY TREATED AS CASH DEPOSIT), AMOUNTING TO RS. 2 LAKHS AND OPENING CASH BALANCE AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE OF RS.6,11 ,628/- AND CASH AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE OUT OF THE CASH WITHDRA WAL MADE EARLIER AMOUNTING TO RS.4,25,000/-, THERE REMAINS ONLY AMOU NT OF RS.1,96,872/-, AND THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY OFFERED THE INCOME AS NET PROFIT ON SALE OF RS.1,81,402/-, AND THEREFORE, THE DIFFERENCE AMOUNT OF RS.15,470/- CAN ONLY BE ADDED. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ALREADY SUSTAINED AN ADDITION OF RS.65,669/- WHICH IS CLEARLY IN EXCESS OF DIFFERENCE AMOUNT OF RS.15,470/-. HE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A), AND ALSO PAPERS SUBMITTED IN THE COMPILATION BY THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT IN PARA-4 OF THE WRITTEN SU BMISSIONS FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS SUMMARIZED IN THE FORM OF CHART THAT EVEN IF THE TRADING BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE IN CLOTH IS CONSID ERED AS NON-GENUINE, THE DIFFERENCE REMAINS ONLY AT RS.15,470/-. WE FIND TH AT THE CIT(A) IN HIS APPELLATE ORDER HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.2,00,000/- ITA NO.1398/AHD/2011 -3- DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS THROUGH CHEQUE RECEIV ED BACK OF LOAN GIVEN TO ONE RAHIM R. SOMANI AND THE SAID PARTY WAS ASSES SED TO TAX AND THEY HAVE CONFIRMED THE TRANSACTION WITH THEIR PAN AND A DDRESS. THUS, THE TOTAL CASH DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS BANK AC COUNT WERE RS.12,33,500/- AND OUT OF THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE WA S HAVING OPENING CASH BALANCE AVAILABLE WITH HIM AT RS.6,11,628/-. THE A SSESSEE HAS SHOWN HIS BANK ACCOUNT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME ITSELF AND IT IS NOT A CASE OF DETECTION OF SOME UNDISCLOSED BANK ACCOUNT. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ITS BALANCE SHEET FOR THE EARLIER YEAR ENDING 31.3.2006 , WHEREIN THE CASH ON HAND AT RS.6,11,628/- IS CLEARLY SHOWN BY THE ASSES SEE. WE FIND THAT RS.4,25,000/- WAS CASH AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE FOR REDEPOSIT OUT OF CASH WITHDRAWALS MADE EARLIER FROM ITS BANK ACCOUNT . THUS, THERE REMAINS BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.1,96,872/- ONLY,. THE ASSESSE E HAS DECLARED AND OFFERED THE TAX ON NET PROFIT ON SALE OF RS.1,81,40 2/-, AND THERE REMAINS THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.15,470/-. WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.65,669/- AS AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS.14,33,500/- MADE BY THE AO AS UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS, AND THIS FI GURE SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) AT RS.65,669/- BEING IN EXCESS OF THE DIFFER ENCE AMOUNT OF RS.15,470/- AS DETAILED ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW T HAT NO INTERFERENCE IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS CALLED FOR, WHICH IS ACC ORDINGLY CONFIRMED AND THE GROUND NO.1 OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE. SD/- SD/- ( %&'( %&'( %&'( %&'( / ANIL CHATURVEDI) )* + )* + )* + )* + /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . .. . . .. . /G.C. GUPTA) !' !' !' !' /VICE-PRESIDENT