Sunil Jain, Gwalior V. A.C.I.T.- Circle-1, Gwalior

ITA 160/AGR/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 16020314 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-11-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 31-10-2011
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 17-05-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: V BAPNA
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Set aside
• Section: 153A; 143(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH, SMC, AGRA BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.160/AGR/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 SHRI SUNIL JAIN, VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX, PROP. M/S. AHINSA DIAMOND JEWELLERY, CIRCLE-1, GWAL IOR. SARAFA BAZAR, GWALIOR. (AESPJ 2872 D) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI V. BAPNA, C.A. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A.K. SHARMA, JR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 31.10.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01.11.2011 ORDER THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST T HE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.03.2010 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), GWALIOR FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THE LEARNED CIT( A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING ACTION OF ACIT OF PASSING ORDER U/S 153A OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WITHOUT ISSUING NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF INCO ME TAX ACT, 1961 IS ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED AND BAD IN LAW. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE L EARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF ` 1,10,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF AMOUNT DEPOSITED IN BANK ACCOUNT ON DIFFERENT DATES TREATI NG AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES WHICH IS ILLEGAL UNJUSTIFIED AN D BAD IN LAW. ITA NO.160/AGR/2010 A.Y. 2007-08 2 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING , THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN GROUND NO.1 HAS BEEN DECIDED AGAINST TH E ASSESSEE BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ASHOK CHADDHA VS. I TO REPORTED IN (2011) 337 ITR 399 (DEL). HE REQUESTED THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVE D IN GROUND NO.1 MAY BE DISMISSED. 3. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE CONFIRMED TH E STATEMENT OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSES. 4. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES ON THE ISSUE INVO LVED IN GROUND NO.1, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE DEL HI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ASHOK CHADDHA VS. ITO (SUPRA), I DECIDE THE ISSUE I NVOLVED IN GROUND NO.1 AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 5. AS REGARDS TO THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN GROUND NO.2, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE DEPOSITS IN BANK OF INDIA WHICH HAS BEEN WRONGLY REFLECTED IN THE CASH FLOW SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSTT. COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME TAX AND THE ASSESSEE FILED REVISED CASH FLOW SHOWING ` 80,420/- DEFICIT IN CASH IS EXPLAINED BY WAY OF CASH IN HAND OF ASSESSEES HUF. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT EARLIER ON THE BASIS OF CASH FLOW CHART ` 1,10,000/- WAS EXPLAINED DEPOSITED IN THE BANK OF I NDIA. IN THIS CASH FLOW ` 10,000/- WAS SHOWN DEPOSITED ON 01.06.2006 AS AGAIN ST ACTUAL ITA NO.160/AGR/2010 A.Y. 2007-08 3 DATE 22.05.2006 AND ` 1,00,000/- WAS SHOWN CREDITED ON 26.06.2006 AS AGAI NST ON 06.06.2006. HE SUBMITTED THAT DEFICIT IS EXPLAINED AS THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING CASH BALANCE OF HIS HUF AS WELL WHICH CAN BE USED FOR TH E PURPOSE EXPLAINING DEFICIT IN CASH. HE REQUESTED THAT THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE MA Y BE DELETED, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, ISSUE IN DISPUTE MAY BE SET ASIDE TO T HE ASSESSING OFFICER TO FIND OUT THE AVAILABILITY OF CASH TO EXPLAIN THE DEPOSITS MA DE IN THE BANK. 6. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 7. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE RELEVANT RECORDS AVAILABLE WITH ME ESPECIALLY THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S DEPOSITED CASH IN BANK OF INDIA AMOUNTING TO ` 80,000/- ON 20.05.2006, ` 10,000/- ON 22.05.2006 AND ` 1,00,000/- ON 06.06.2006. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE A SSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THESE CASH DEPOSITS IN DISPUTE. THE LD. FIRST APPE LLATE AUTHORITY HAS THOROUGHLY PERUSED THE CASH BOOK, CASH FLOW STATEMENTS AND BAN K BOOK AND FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUFFICIENT CASH BALANCE EXPLAINING THE DEPOSIT OF ` 80,000/- MADE ON 20.05.2006 AS THE OPENING BALANCE AS ON 01.04.2006 IS ` 67,380/- AND AMOUNT OF ` 34,000/- HAS BEEN RECEIVED SUBSEQUENTLY UPTO 15.05. 2006. KEEPING IN VIEW OF ITA NO.160/AGR/2010 A.Y. 2007-08 4 THIS EXPLANATION, THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS GIVEN RELIEF TO THIS EXTENT BUT AS REGARDS TO DEPOSIT MADE ON 22.05.2006 AMOUNTING TO ` 10,000/- AND ` 1,00,000/- MADE ON 06.06.2006 AS THE CLOSING BALANCE ON 21.05. 2006 IS AT ` 17,880/- AND THE OPENING BALANCE ON 01.06.2006 IS ` 14,380/-. IT IS ALSO FOUND THAT NO OTHER TRANSACTION HAS BEEN RECORDED IN THE CASH BOOK FROM 01.06.2006 TO 16.06.2006. THEREFORE, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT ARE OUT OF CASH AVAILABLE AS PER THE CASH B OOK IS NOT CORRECT. THEREFORE, THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS RIGHTLY MADE THE ADDITION OF ` 1,10,000/-. I FIND THAT THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS PASSED A WELL REASONED ORDER ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES, THEREFORE, NO NEED TO INT ERFERE IN THE SAME. I UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN GROUND NO.2 BY DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS D ISMISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 01.11.2011). SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE: 1 ST NOVEMBER, 2011 PBN/* COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT CONCERNED/CIT(APPEALS) CO NCERNED/D.R., ITAT, AGRA BENCH, AGRA/GUARD FILE. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA