Sunil Kumar, Jamshedpur V. ITo, Jamshedpur

ITA 144/RAN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0014 (ITAT-RANCHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 14-10-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHAUDHURY ORAM
• Assessee Lawyers: M K CHOWDHARY
• Keywords: Business income; Peak credit

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI SMC BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 144/RAN/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008 - 09 SUNIL KUMAR, 5, H - 6, TATA LINE, AKASHDEEP, GOLMURI, JAMSHEDPUR VS. ITO, WARD - 3(3), JAMSHEDPUR PAN/GIR NO. AKGPK 7541 J (APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI M.K.CHOWDHARY , AR REVENUE BY : SHRI CHAUDHURY ORAM , DR DATE OF HEARING : 13 /12/ 2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13 /12/ 2016 O R D E R THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGA INST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) - JAMSHEDPUR , DATED 27.8.2015 , FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 . 2. IN GROUND NOS,1 , 2 & 3 OF THE APPEAL, THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LD CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF PEAK CRED IT OF RS.3,28,286/ - DEPOSITED IN THE IDBI BANK ACCOUNT. 3. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE 2 ITA NO. 144/RAN/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008 - 09 TOTAL CASH /CHEQUE DEPOSIT OF RS.9,32,963/ - IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WITH IDBI ACCOUNT NO.017104000145848. ON A QUERY BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WAS OUT OF RECEIPTS FROM TRANSPORT BUSINESS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT IT IS AN AFTERTHOUGHT AND, THEREFORE, DID NOT ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. HE, THEREFORE, MADE AN ADDITION OF PEAK CREDIT OF RS3,2 8,286/ - TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. ON APPEAL, LD CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. BEFORE ME. LD A.R. REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND SUBMITTED THAT THE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WERE OUT OF BUSINESS RECEIPTS FROM TRANSPORTATION BUSINESS. HOWEVER, NO EVIDENCE FOR TH E SAME COULD BE FILED BEFORE ME TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS IN THE BUSINESS OF TRANSPORTATION. THEREFORE, I DO NOT FIND ANY GOOD JUSTIFIABLE REASONS TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A), WHICH IS HEREBY CONFIRMED AND ACCORDINGLY, DISMISS THE GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN GROUND NO.4 OF THE APPEAL, THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN TREATING RS.2,895/ - BEING INTEREST AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. 7. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. . IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED INTEREST OF RS.2,895/ - ON DEPOSIT IN THE BANK , WHICH WAS NO T OFFERED TO TAX. HE, 3 ITA NO. 144/RAN/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008 - 09 ACCORDINGLY, ADDED THE SAME TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS CONFIRMED IN APPEAL BY THE LD CIT(A). 8. BEFORE ME, NO SERIOUS ARGUMENT WAS ADVANCED BY LD A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS GROUND. HENCE, I FIND NO ERROR IN THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) WHICH IS HEREBY CONFIRMED AND DISMISS THIS GROUND OF THE APPEAL. 9. IN GROUND NO.5 OF THE APPEAL, THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LD CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ADDING RS.1,03,778/ - PAID AS MARGIN MONEY FOR PURCHASE OF TRAILER . 10. B RIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED A TRAILER FOR RS.13,53,778/ - FROM M/S. MITHILA MOTORS LIMITED, JAMSHEDPUR ON 31.1.2008. FROM THE DOC U MENTS SUBMITTED, IT APPEARS THAT RS.1,03,778/ - WAS PAID AS MA RGIN MONEY TOWARDS FINANCE OF THIS TRAILER. THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.12,50,000/ - WAS FINANCED BY M/S. CITY CORP FINANCE (INDIA) LTD., THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT OFFER ANY EXPLANATION REGARDING THE MARGIN MONEY PAID AMOUNTING TO RS.1,03,778/ - AND ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME WAS ADDED AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT U/S.69 OF THE ACT. 11. ON APPEAL, LD CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 12. BEFORE ME, THE ONLY ARGUMENT OF THE LD A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT SINCE THE ADDITION OF PEAK CREDIT OF RS.3,28,28 6/ - HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESS E E AS UNDISCLOSED DEPOSITS, THE SAME CAN BE 4 ITA NO. 144/RAN/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008 - 09 TREATED AS SOURCE FOR PAYMENT OF MARGIN MONEY OF RS.1,03,778/ - AND TELESCOPING FOR THE SAME SHOULD BE ALLOWED. 13. LD D.R. CONCEDED WITH THE CONTENTION OF LD A. R OF THE ASSESSEE. 14. IN VIEW OF ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I ALLOW TELESCOPING OF MARGIN MONEY OF RS.1,03,778/ - PAID FOR PURCHASE OF NEW TRAILER FROM THE UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN THE B ANK OF RS.3,28,286/ - . HENCE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY DISPOSED OFF. 15. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRO NOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13 /12/2016 IN THE PRESENCE OF PARTIES. SD/ - (N.S SAINI) A CCOUNTANT MEMBER RANCHI ; DATED 13 /12 /2016 B.K.PARIDA, SPS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, SR.PS, ITAT, CAMP AT RANCHI 1. THE APPELLANT : SUNIL KUMAR, 5, H - 6, TATA LINE, AKASHDEEP, GOLMURI, JAMSHEDPUR 2. THE RESPONDENT. ITO, WARD - 3(3), JAMSHEDPUR 3. THE CIT(A) JAMSHEDPUR 4. CIT , JAMSHEDPUR 5. DR, ITAT, RANCHI 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//