Shri Bhaskar Bhattacharrya, Howrah V. ITO, Ward - 33(2), Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 1660/KOL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 48203 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 23-08-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K PRAMANICK
• Assessee Lawyers: K P GHOSH
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Income from undisclosed sources
• Section: 142(1)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH: KOL KATA () BEFORE . . , ! '# '# '# '# /AND ' # , ! ) [BEFORE HONBLE SHRI S. V. MEHROTRA, AM & HONBLE S RI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM] #$ #$ #$ #$ / I.T.A NO. 1660/KOL/2010 %& ''( %& ''( %& ''( %& ''(/ // / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 SRI BHASKAR BHATTACHARRYA VS INCOME-TAX OFFICER , WD-33(2), KOLKATA (PAN-AFVPB 8204 R) ( *+ /APPELLANT ) (,-*+/ RESPONDENT ) *+ . / / FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI K. P. GHOSH ,-*+ . / / FOR THE RESPONDENT: SHRI A. K. PRAMANICK 0 / ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM/ ' # ' # ' # ' # , ! ! ! ! : THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-XX, KOLKATA IN APPEAL NO.246/CIT(A)-XX/WARD-33(2)/08-09/KOL VIDE DATED 29 .07.2010. THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY ITO, WD-33(2), KOLKATA U/S.143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 VIDE HIS ORD ER DATED 30.12.2008. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT AMOUNTING T O RS.4,70 LACS. FOR THIS, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING TWO GROUNDS: 1. FOR THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED AND WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.4,70,000/- O N ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES TREATING PART OF THE GENUINE LO AN TAKEN FROM SRI SEKHAR KR. DAS AND THUS DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND WHILE PASSING THE I MPUGNED ORDER HE DID NOT AT ALL GIVE DUE AND JUDICIOUS CONSIDERATION TO THE WRITTEN SUBM ISSION FILED BEFORE HIM IN COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL CASE AND AS SUCH THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS BAD IN LAW AND LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 2. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO URGE FURTHER GROUN D OR GROUNDS AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. BRIEF FACTS LEADING TO THE ABOVE ISSUE ARE THAT ASS ESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 20.10.2006 DISCLOSING INCOME AT RS.77,810/-. SUBSEQUENTLY, NO TICE U/S. 143(2) R.W.S. 142(1) WAS ISSUED ON 28.8.2007 AND DULY SERVED. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR ACCEPTED LOAN FROM ONE SHRI SEKHAR KR. DAS AMOUNTING TO RS.5,90,000/- AS UNDER: 2 ITA 1660/K/2010 SHRI BHASKAR BHATTACHARRYA. A.Y.06-07 (I) CASH OF RS.50,000/- ON 2.7.2005 (II) CASH OF RS.50,000/- ON 13.9.2005 AND (III) BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE DATED 12.9.2005 AMOUN TING TO RS.4.90 LACS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPL AIN THE CASH CREDIT AND IN RESPONSE TO SAME, ASSESSEE PRODUCED THE LOAN CREDITOR SHRI SEKHAR KR. DAS, WHOSE STATEMENT WAS RECORDED. BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE LOAN CREDITOR EXPLAINED SOURCES AS UNDER: P.F. FINAL WITHDRAWAL RS. 90,000/- RS. 90,000/- RS. 70,000/- PERSONAL SAVINGS RS. 40,000/- LOAN FROM BROTHER IN LAW SHRI SAMIR DAS RS.1,00,00 0/- THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE DEPOSIT OF RS.3,90,000 /- IN PNB, SHIBPUR ACCOUNT IS OUT OF THE ABOVE SOURCES BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED THE PF FINAL WITHDRAWAL AS UNDER: SBI GARDEN REACH RS.95,000/- ON 27/4/2005 PNB SHIBPUR RS.95,000/- ON 21/5/2005 SBI GARDEN REACH RS.30,000/- ON 26/8/2005 SBI GARDEN REACH RS.70,000/- ON 09/5/2006 ACCORDING TO ASSESSING OFFICER, THIS SUM OF RS.3,90 ,000/- IS NOT PROVED AND EVEN THE WITHDRAWALS FOR THE PERIOD APRIL, 2005 TO 12.9.2005 IS AMOUNTING TO RS.91,000/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER FOUND THAT SHRI SEKHAR KR . DAS CONFIRMED THE LOAN OF RS.4,90,000/- TO SHALIMAR CONSTRUCTION AND A SUM OF RS. 1,00,000/- I N THE NAME OF BHASKAR BHATTACHARYYA. BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE LOAN CREDITOR COULD NOT ESTABLISH THE CREDITWORTHINESS, HENCE HE CONSIDERING THE FAMILY WITHDRAWALS OF RS.1 ,98,863/- AND RS.1,10,067/-, THAT COMES TO RS.3,09,930/- TREATED A SUM OF RS.1,20,000/- AS SUR PLUS MONEY AVAILABLE FOR ADVANCING TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE BALANCE SUM OF RS.4,70,000/- WAS A DDED TO THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) ALSO CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY STATING AS UNDER: 4. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE L OAN CREDITOR IS ASSESSED TO INCOME TAX, AND, LOAN CONFIRMATION WAS FILED BEFORE THE A. O. IT WAS ALSO ARGUED THAT LOAN TO THE EXTENT OF RS.4,00,000/- HAS ALREADY BEEN REPAID . I HAVE PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLAN T. THE LOAN OF RS.4,90,000/- WAS DEBITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE LOAN CREDITOR ON 12.9.2005. BUT, BEFORE GIVING THE LOAN, AN AMOUNT OF RS.3,90,000/- WAS DEPOSITED IN C ASH ON THE SAME DATE. THE A.O. HAS DISCUSSED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE SOURCE O F SUCH CASH DEPOSIT COULD NOT BE SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED. THE A.O. HAS BROUGHT POS ITIVE MATERIAL ON RECORD WHICH RAISES DOUBTS ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACT IONS. I AM INCLINED TO AGREE WITH THE A.O. THAT THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LOAN CREDITOR IS NOT ESTABLISHED. I ALSO FIND FORCE IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE A.O. THAT APPELLANTS OWN UN ACCOUNTED INCOME HAS BEEN INTRODUCED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE LOAN CREDITOR , WHICH THEN FLEW BACK IN THE FORM OF LOAN. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ADDITION OF RS.4,7 0,000/- IS CONFIRMED. GROUND NO.2 IS DISMISSED. 3 ITA 1660/K/2010 SHRI BHASKAR BHATTACHARRYA. A.Y.06-07 4. WE FIND THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE GONE INT O THE ACTUAL FACTS AND EVEN THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LOAN CR EDITOR SHRI SEKHAR KR. DAS REGARDING CAPACITY TO ADVANCE LOAN OF RS.5,90,000/- OUT OF WH ICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.4,70,000/- AS UNEX PLAINED. THE BANK ACCOUNT OF SEKHAR KUMAR DAS MAINTAINED WITH PNB, ACCOUNT NO. 13508 RE VEALS THAT THERE IS A CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.3.90 LACS ON 12.9.2005, AND NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR THE LOAN CREDITOR IS ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THIS ENTRY OUT OF WHICH THE LOAN OF RS.4. 90 LACS WAS ADVANCED. AS THE FACTS ARE CLEAR WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE ADDITI ON. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. 6. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 10.6.2011. SD/- SD/- . . ! ' '' ' # # # # , ! (S. V. MEHROTRA) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ( 1 1 1 1) )) ) DATED 10TH JUNE, 2011 '23 %45 6' JD.(SR.P.S.) 0 . ,7 87'9- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . *+ / APPELLANT SHRI BHASKAR BHATTACHARRYA, 34, GURUNAN AK LANE, HOWRAH-711103. 2 ,-*+ / RESPONDENT, ITO, WARD-33(2), KOLKATA 3 . 0% ( )/ THE CIT(A), KOLKATA 4. 0% / CIT, KOLKATA 5 . '? ,% / DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA -7 ,/ TRUE COPY, 0%@/ BY ORDER, #5 /ASSTT. REGISTRAR .