Naresh Kumar Bhutna, SURATGARH V. ITO, SURATGARH

ITA 167/JODH/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 16723314 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-12-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 07-12-2011
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 03-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G R KOKANI
• Section: 133(6)

Judgement Text

1 ITA 167-11 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH SMC JODHPUR. ( BEFORE SHRI R.K. GUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ) ITA NO. 167/JODH/2011 ASSTT. YEAR : 2007-08. SHRI NARESH KUMAR BHUTNA, VS. THE INCOME-TAX OF FICER, PROP. M/S. SHREE NEWS AGENCIES, SURATGARH. CSF MARKET, SURATGARH. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SURESH OJHA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI G.R. KOKANI DATE OF HEARING : 07.12.2011. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09.12.2011. ORDER DATED : 09.12.2011. THIS IS AN APPEAL BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. FIRST ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS AGAINST C ONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE @ 1/5 TH OF VARIOUS EXPENSES CLAIMED. 3. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER AND LD. CIT (A) AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, I FEEL THAT IF DISALLO WANCE IS RESTRICTED TO RS. 15,000/- AS AGAINST RS. 22,540/- THAT WILL MEET THE ENDS OF JUS TICE. I ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 4. REMAINING ISSUE IS AGAINST CONFIRMING ADDITION O F RS. 2,82,630/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DEPOSIT IN THE PERSONAL BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSE SSEE. 2 5. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THIS ADDITION ON RECE IVING INFORMATION UNDER SECTION 133(6) THAT ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED CERTAIN AMOUNT I N HIS BANK ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, HE MADE ADDITION UNDER SECTION 68. THE LD. CIT (A) HA S ALSO CONFIRMED THE SAME. 6. THE A/R OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT CONFRONTED WITH THE INFORMATION GATHERED UNDER SECTION 133(6) AND, THER EFORE, MAKING ADDITION IS NOT JUSTIFIED. HOWEVER, ON QUERY FROM THE BENCH THAT DEPOSITS ARE MADE IN PERSONAL ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, BANK ACCOUNT SHOULD HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE. IN REPLY, THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT ASSESSE E COULD NOT GET THE COPY OF BANK STATEMENT AND, THEREFORE, TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTI CE, MATTER SHOULD BE SENT BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR REEXAMINATION AND AFFORDIN G REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AS PROPER OPPORTUNITY WAS NOT GIVEN BEFORE PASSING ASSESSMENT. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. D/R OBJECTED THE CONTENTI ON OF THE ASSESSEE AND STATED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND LD. CIT (A) HAVE PASSED V ERY WELL REASONED ORDERS. 8. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSING T HE MATERIAL ON RECORD, I RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT (A) TO ALLOW OPPO RTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE CASH DEPOSIT IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT AS LD. A/R HAS STATED T HAT HE COULD NOT GET THE COPY OF BANK STATEMENT AND, THEREFORE, DEPOSIT COULD NOT BE EXPL AINED. TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE, I RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT (A) AS ST ATED ABOVE. I ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED IN PART FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 10. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09 .12.2011. SD/- ( R.K. GUPTA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER JODHPUR, 3 COPY FORWARDED TO :- SHRI NARESH KUMAR BHUTNA, SURATGARH. THE ITO SURATGARH. THE CIT (A) THE CIT BY ORDER, THE D/R GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 167/JODH/2011) AR ITAT JODH PUR