Sh. Mohinder Pal Singh, Patiala V. ITO, Patiala

ITA 144/CHANDI/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6622 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 07-09-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 06-02-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Keywords: Non passing of speaking order

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH B, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS.DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.144/CHD/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12) SHRI MOHINDER PAL SINGH, VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, # 21/4, GHAS MANDI, WARD-I, PATIALA. RAGHO MAJRA, PATIALA. PAN: AACBPS2208P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH, ADV. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 02.11.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17.11.2017 ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, A.M.: THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAI NST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS ), PATIALA (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS CIT(APPEALS)) DATED 19.8.2014 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL PERTAINS TO ADDITION MADE OF RS.40,92,200/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXP LAINED CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS RUNNING MULTIPLE BUSINESSES NAMELY A KIRANA SHOP, FINANCING BUSINESS AND WAS ALSO PARTNER IN M/S M.R. ENTERPRISES. DURING T HE IMPUGNED YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE CASH DEPOSITS O F RS.40,92,200/- IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT IN ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HE WAS ASKED TO FILE NECESSARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE SOURCE OF 2 DEPOSIT. DUE REPLIES AND EXPLANATIONS WERE FILED W HICH WERE ALL REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO THER EAFTER HELD THE CASH DEPOSITS AS UNEXPLAINED MONEY OF THE ASSESSEE AND MADE ADDITION OF THE SAME TO THE INCOM E OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE LD.CIT(APPEALS) UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSE SSING OFFICER. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE HAS COME UP IN APPEAL BEFORE US, RAISING FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPE AL: 1. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) H AS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS.40,92 ,200/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE AS SESSEE IN UTTER DISREGARD OF THE EXPLANATIONS RENDERED WHICH IS ILLEGAL , ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED. 2. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) H AS SIMPLY BRUSHED ASIDE THE EXPLANATIONS RENDERED THAT THE CA SH BELONGED TO THE BROTHER-IN-LAW OF THE ASSESSEE WHO HA S CONFIRMED HAVING DEPOSITED THE CASH IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED. 3. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN NOT ADJUDICATING THE ALTERNATE SUBMISSION B EING THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH CLEARLY E STABLISHES THE ROTATION OF CASH WHICH IS ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIF IED. 4. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS ERRONEOUS, ARBITRARY, OPPOSED TO LAW AN D FACTS OF THE CASE AND IS, THUS, UNTENABLE. 5. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FO R ASSESSEE STATED THAT HIS ONLY PRAYER IS THAT THE MA TTER BE RESTORED TO THE LD.CIT(APPEALS) SINCE IT WAS A NON SPEAKING ORDER, PASSED WITHOUT CONSIDERING AND DEALING WITH ALL THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR A SSESSEE FIRST DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE DETAILED SUBMISSION S FILED BEFORE THE LD.CIT(APPEALS) PLACED AT PAPER BOOK PA GES 28 TO 32. OUR ATTENTION WAS ALSO DRAWN TO THE DOCUMEN TS SUBMITTED TO THE LD.CIT(APPEALS) BEING CASH FLOW 3 STATEMENTS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS EVIDENCING THE SOURC E OF THE CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK. THEREAFTER THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE DREW OUR AT TENTION TO THE FINDINGS OF THE LD.CIT(APPEALS) AT PARA 4.3 OF HIS ORDER AS UNDER: 4.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE. IN THIS CASE, THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTENTION THAT THE CASH HAS BEEN DEPOSITED BY HIS RELATIVES OR BY WAYS OF CIRCULATION OF MONEY. NO DETAILS AS ASKED FOR BY THE A.O. REGARDING THE EVIDENCE TO BE FILED IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTENTION THAT THE CASH AHS BEEN DEPOSITED BY THE RELATIVES HAS BEEN FILED. SIMILARLY, NO DETAILS OF THE DEBTORS ETC. HAS BEEN FILED. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS ALSO, THE SUBMISSION MADE BEFORE THE A.O. IS REPEATED AND NO FURTHER EVIDENCE IS SUBMITTED. IN VIEW OF THIS, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE ADDITION HAS BEEN RIGHTLY MADE BY THE A.O. 6. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT TH E LD.CIT(APPEALS) HAD CURSORILY DISMISSED ASSESSEES APPEAL WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE, MORE PARTICULARLY THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT FILED BY HIM AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 7. LD.DR ON THE OTHER HAND SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF T HE CIT(A) OBJECTING TO THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT I T WASA NON-SPEAKING ORDER. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOT H THE PARTIES, GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND ALSO TAKEN NOTE OF THE DOCUMENTS TO WHICH OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN. 9. ON GOING THROUGH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD.CIT(APP EALS) AT PARA 4.3 OF HIS ORDER, AS REPRODUCED ABOVE, WE F IND THAT 4 HE HAS MERELY REITERATED THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER ON THE ISSUE OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS W ITHOUT DEALING WITH THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BEFORE HIM BY T HE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND, HAD FILED REPLIES DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHICH ARE PART OF THE PAPER BOOK FROM PAGE NOS.5 TO 27 AND WHICH INCLUDE FIVE LETTER S FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE HAD EXP LAINED THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT RELATE TO HIS BROTHER IN LAW WHO WAS IN THE TRANSPORTATION BUSINE SS RUNNING TRUCKS AND WHO DEPOSITED AND WITHDREW CASH FROM THE ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT TO FACILITATE PAYMENT TO THE TRUCK DRIVERS FOR EXPENSES IN PATIALA. COPIES OF ITRS OF HIS BROTHER IN LAW AND HIS HUF, ALONGWITH HIS CONFI RMATION OF DEPOSITS IN THE ASESSEES ACCOUNT WAS FILED. FURT HER A CASH FLOW STATEMENT EXPLAINING EVERY DEPOSIT WAS FI LE, STATING THAT IT WAS ON ACCOUNT OF CIRCULATION OF TH E SAME FUNDS. DETAILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS TO THE SAME EFF ECT WERE ALSO FILED BEFORE THE LD.CIT(APPEALS) ALONGWITH CAS H FLOW AND PHOTOCOPY OF A CHEQUE ISSUED BY LIC TO SUBSTANT IATE ITS SUBMISSIONS. EVIDENTLY, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED DET AILED SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE LD.CIT(APPEALS) BUT PERUSAL OF THE FINDINGS OF THE LD.CIT(APPEALS) REVEAL THAT HE HAS NOT DEALT WITH THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AT ALL AND MERELY REITERATED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R. BEING AN APPELLATE AUTHORITY HE WAS DUTY BOUND TO PASS A WELL- REASONED ORDER DEALING WITH ALL THE CONTENTIONS RAI SED BY THE ASSESSEE THUS BRINGING OUT CLEARLY THE MANNER I N WHICH HE ARRIVED AT THE CONCLUSION. SINCE THE LD.CIT(APP EALS), WE 5 FIND, HAS FAILED TO DO, WE AGREE WITH THE LD. COUNS EL FOR ASSESSEE THAT THE APPELLATE ORDER IS A NON-SPEAKING ORDER AND WE, THEREFORE, CONSIDER IT FIT TO RESTORE THE I SSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD.CIT(APPEALS) TO DECIDE THE IS SUE AFRESH AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSE SSEE. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (DIVA SINGH) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 17 TH , 2017 *RATI* COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH