Raj Kumar Saini, Chandigarh V. ITO-Ward-1(2), Chandigarh

ITA 16/CHANDI/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4331 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-09-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 18-03-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence; Set aside
• Section: 68; 250

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH CHANDIGARH Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member I.T.A. No.16/CHANDI/2021 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Raj Kumar Saini........................ ..................................................... Appellant Prop. M/s Rajasthan Poly Pack, Plot No.48, Industrial Area PH-I, Chandigarh-160002. [PAN: AFNPS1741L] vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Chandigarh.............................................................. Respondent Appearances by: Shri Neeraj Jain, CA, appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Akashdeep, JCIT, Sr. DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : August 10, 2022 Date of pronouncing the order : September 22, 2022 ORDER Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 16.05.2019 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chandigarh [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). The assessee in this appeal has taken the following grounds of appeal: “1. That the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in not giving the proper opportunity of hearing, which is against the natural justice and the case be set aside. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.10,40,000/- on account of cash credits u/s 68 of the Act. 3. That without prejudice to above grounds of appeal the appellant disputes the quantum of addition. 4. That the appellant craves leave for any addition, deletion or amendment in the grounds of appeal on or before the disposal of the same.” 2. The sole issue raised by the assessee is relating to confirmation of addition of Rs.10,40,000/- on account cash credits u/s 68 of the Act. Raj Kumar Saini I.T.A. No.16/CHANDI/2021 Assessment Year: 2013-14 2 3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was in the business of trading of plastic scraps and granules. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that there were cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee vide four transactions of different dates totalling to Rs.10.40 lakhs. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee could not successfully prove the source of the cash deposits. He, therefore, added the aforesaid amount into the income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act. 4. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 5. Before this Tribunal, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee had duly furnished the additional evidences before the CIT(A) to prove the source of the cash deposits. That the aforesaid cash deposits were out of amount received from the past debtors and out of the cash sales as well as withdrawal from the bank account. The assessee in this respect relied upon the books of account including the copy of ledger, bank account statements and copes of VAT returns. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has further relied page 90 of the paper-book to submit that the details of each of the amount received from different parties were duly produced before the CIT(A), the contents of which, for the sake of ready reference, are reproduced as under: SOURCES FROM 01.04.12 TO 31.12.12 BANK WITHDRAWALS 2952200 RECEIVED FROM VIMAL PETROTHIN 117810 RECEIVED FROM BALAJI 15050 RECEIVED FROM MANOJ ENTERPRISES 115198 RECEIVED FROM CONSOLIDIATED POLY 80325 RECEIVED FROM DURGA ENTERPRISES 463182 RECEIVED FROM SP INDUSTRIES 81024 RECEIVED FROM MEWAR PLASTIC 302700 RECEIVED FROM SAHIB CABLE 31500 1206789 CASH SALE 14088 4173077 Raj Kumar Saini I.T.A. No.16/CHANDI/2021 Assessment Year: 2013-14 3 6. The ld. Counsel has further relied upon the copies of the bank statement to prove the cash withdrawals. The ld. Counsel has further submitted that the cash sales shown by the assessee were duly accounted for in sales tax/VAT returns filed by the assessee and further that the cash was available in the cash book of the assessee on the date of deposits. 7. The ld. DR could not rebut the aforesaid factual evidence relied upon by the assessee. 8. In view of the above, I do not find justification on the part of lower authorities in making / confirming the impugned additions the same are accordingly ordered to be deleted. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed. Kolkata, the 22 nd September, 2022. Sd/- [Sanjay Garg] Judicial Member Dated: 22.09.2022. RS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Raj Kumar Saini 2. ITO, Ward-1(2), Chandigarh 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR), ITAT, Chandigarh //True copy// By order Assistant Registrar