Sri. Suresh Muniramaswamy, Bangalore V. ITO, Bangalore

ITA 1518/BANG/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9455 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 21-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 27-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

ITA.1518/BANG/2014 PAGE - 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH 'B', BANGALORE SHRI. ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A NO.1518/BANG/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) SHRI. SURESH MUNTRAMASWAMY, NO.16/17, SRIDHIVA KRUPA, SUBRAMANYAPURA ROAD, CHIKKALASANDRA, UTTARAHALLI, BENGALURU 560 061 .. APPELLANT PAN : AOFPM1976C V. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 10(2), BENGALURU .. RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI. NARENDRA SHARMA, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SMT. SWAPNA DAS, JCIT HEARD ON : 21.06.2016 PRONOUNCED ON : 26.07.2016 O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : IN THIS APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IT ASSAILS AN ADD ITION OF RS.23,32,750/- MADE BY THE AO WHICH WAS CONFIRMED B Y THE CIT (A). ITA.1518/BANG/2014 PAGE - 2 02. FACTS APROPOS ARE THAT ASSESSEE DERIVING INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, FILED HIS RETURN FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR D ECLARING INCOME OF RS.6,78,790/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS IT WAS NOTED BY THE AO THAT ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED A SUM OF RS.2 3,50,550/- IN ITS ACCOUNT WITH M/S. THYAGARAJA COOPERATIVE BANK LTD, (TCBL IN SHORT). ASSESSEE FOR PROVING THE SOURCE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO A COPY OF A SALE AGREEMENT ENTERED BY HIM WITH ONE SHRI. P. SURESH O N 18.10.2006. AS PER THE ASSESSEE, HE HAD ON 18.10.2006 PAID A SUM OF RS .20 LAKHS TO SHRI. P. SURESH FOR ACQUIRING A PROPERTY FROM HIM. CONTENTI ON OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT ACQUISITION DID NOT GO THROUGH AND THEREFORE S HRI. P. SURESH RETURNED THE SUM OF RS.20 LAKHS DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. AS PER THE ASSESSEE, SUCH AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED BY HIM IN HIS A CCOUNT WITH TCBL. WITH RESPECT TO THE BALANCE SUM OF RS.3,50,550/-, C ONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT HE HAD ACCUMULATED FUNDS OVER THE YEARS, WHICH WAS AVAILABLE WITH HIM . AO WAS NOT IMPRESSED. ACCOR DING TO HIM, FOR CASH DEPOSITS IN EXCESS OF RS.10,000/-, ASSESSEE COULD N OT GIVE ANY EXPLANATION. HE MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.23,32,750/- AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT. 03. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE MOVED IN APPEAL BEFORE THE C IT (A). ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT SIMILAR TO WHAT HE HAD TAK EN BEFORE THE AO. ITA.1518/BANG/2014 PAGE - 3 ASSESSEE ALSO FILED A COPY OF HIS BANK STATEMENT FO R F. Y. 2006-07 WHICH REFLECTED CASH WITHDRAWALS OF RS.20 LAKHS. AS PER THE ASSESSEE THERE WAS A WITHDRAWAL OF RS.19 LAKHS BY SELF-CHEQUE ON 17.06.2 006 AND RS.1 LAKH ON 19.10.2006, WHICH WERE USED FOR GIVING ADVANCE TO S HRI. P. SURESH. AS PER THE ASSESSEE, THE SUMS WERE RETURNED BY SHRI. P. SU RESH ON THE FOLLOWING DATES : CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE ONCE AGAIN WAS THAT THE SUM OF RS.20 LAKHS RETURNED BY SHRI. P. SURESH WAS USED FOR MAKING THE DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. ITA.1518/BANG/2014 PAGE - 4 04. HOWEVER, CIT (A) WAS NOT IMPRESSED BY THE ABOVE ARGUMENTS. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE AMOUNTS WHICH WERE DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR DID NOT TALLY WITH THE REFUNDS MENTIONED IN TABLE (SUPRA). OPINION OF THE CIT (A) WAS THAT THE AMOUNTS REFUNDED BY SHRI. P. SURESH, IF AT ALL THER E WERE ANY ACTUAL REFUND, WOULD HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE SA ME DAY OR THE VERY NEXT DAY. CIT (A) NOTED THAT THE DEPOSITS IN THE B ANK ACCOUNT DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR WERE MADE ONLY TO HONOUR THE CHEQUES ISSUED BY ASSESSEE. BUT FOR SUCH DEPOSITS THE CHEQUES ISSUED BY THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE BOUNCED. AS PER THE CIT (A), A NORMAL PERSON WOULD NOT HAVE KEPT HUGE CASH BALANCE WITH HIMSELF WITHOUT DEPOSITING I N THE BANK. CIT (A) ALSO NOTED THAT AGREEMENT FOR SALE PRODUCED BY ASSE SSEE THOUGH IT MENTIONED A REFUND MADE BY SHRI. P. SURESH ON THE B ACK PAGE, DID NOT BEAR SIGNATURE OF ANY WITNESS. HE THUS REFUSED TO ACCEP T THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. IN SO FAR AS THE ACCUMULA TED CASH OF RS.3,32,750/- WAS CONCERNED, FINDING OF CIT (A) WAS THAT ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE ANY CASH-FLOW STATEMENT FOR EARLIER YEARS TO PROVE SUCH SOURCES. HE THUS CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE AO. ITA.1518/BANG/2014 PAGE - 5 05. NOW BEFORE US, LD. AR ASSAILING THE ORDERS OF T HE AUTHORITIES BELOW, SUBMITTED THAT THE AGREEMENT WITH SHRI. P. SURESH W AS NEVER DOUBTED. AGREEMENT CLEARLY SHOWED THE REFUND GIVEN BY SHRI. P. SURESH. THE REFUNDS WERE DISBELIEVED JUST FOR A REASON THAT DEP OSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT WERE OF AMOUNTS SMALLER THAN WHAT WERE RECEIVED AS REFUNDS. IN ANY CASE AS PER THE LD. AR, AO NEVER EXAMINED SHRI. P. SURES H BEFORE COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE AGREEMENT COULD NOT BE RELI ED UPON. 06. PER CONTRA, LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF LOWE R AUTHORITIES. 07. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED BEFO RE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, AGREEMENT DT.18.10.2006 WITH SHRI. P. SURESH. IT I S ALSO NOT DISPUTED THAT DURING THE PRECEDING FINANCIAL YEAR 2006-07, ASSESS EE HAD WITHDRAWN RS.19 LAKHS ON 17.10.2006 AND RS.1 LAKH ON 19.10.2006 FRO M HIS BANK ACCOUNT. AGREEMENT WITH SHRI. P. SURESH WAS ENTERED ON 18.10 .2006. THEREFORE THERE IS EVERY POSSIBILITY THAT THE SUM OF RS.20 LA KHS WITHDRAWN ON 17.10.2006 AND 19.10.2006 WERE USED FOR GIVING ADVA NCE OF RS.20 LAKHS TO SHRI. P. SURESH. CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS RETURNED BY SHRI. P. SURESH DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEA R. IN SUPPORT ASSESSEE PRODUCED THE NOTINGS OF THE REFUND ON THE BACK SIDE OF SUCH AGREEMENT. ITA.1518/BANG/2014 PAGE - 6 CIT (A) DISBELIEVED SUCH NOTES BECAUSE THERE WERE N O WITNESS TO SUCH REFUNDS. THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW HOW THE LOWER AUTHORITIES VERIFIED THE GENUINENESS OF THE AGREEMENT. IN ANY CASE, IN MY OPINION, UNLESS AND UNTIL SHRI. P. SURESH IS EXAMINED, CORRE CTNESS OF THE CLAIM CANNOT BE ASCERTAINED. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, I AM OF THE OPINION THE MATTER REQUIRES A FRESH LOOK BY THE AO. AO HAS TO ISSUE S UMMONS TO SHRI. P. SURESH AND ASSESSEE HAS TO ENSURE HIS ATTENDANCE BE FORE THE AO. AO SHALL EXAMINE THE VERACITY OF THE CLAIMS MADE BY ASSESSEE . HE SHALL THEREAFTER PROCEED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 08. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2016. SD/- (ABRAHAM P GEORGE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MCN COPY TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) 5. DR 6. GF, ITAT, BANGALORE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITA.1518/BANG/2014 PAGE - 7