SHRINIWAS GANGADHAR MITTAPALLI, MUMBAI V. ITO 18(1)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 1677/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1456 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 30-05-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 01-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B S BIST
• Assessee Lawyers: PRANIT TANNA
• Keywords: Revised return

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH E, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI P.K. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1677 /MUM/2013 : (A.Y : 200 7 - 0 8 ) SHRI SHRINIWAS GANGADHAR MITTAPALLI ROOM NO. 69, BDD CHAWL NO. 85, DHONDAJI BABA NARAYAN NAYAK MARG, WORLI, MUMBAI 400 01 8 PAN : A IWPM7694J ( APPELLANT ) VS. IT O - 18(1) (3), MUMBAI (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PRANIT TANNA REVENUE BY : SHRI B.S. BIST DATE OF HEARING : 22/12/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23 /12/2016 O R D E R PER P.K. BANSAL , AM : THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) - 29, MUMBAI DATED 12.9.2011. THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL RELATES TO SUSTENANCE OF ADDITION OF RS.54,42,249/ - . 2. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SAME ALONGWITH THE ORDER OF TAX AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE NOTED THAT IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.54,42,249/ - IN RESPECT OF CASH CREDIT AS HE FOUND TH AT THE OPENING BALANCE IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT AS ON 1.4.2006 AFTER CONSIDERING THE REVISED RETURN FOR 2 SHRINIWAS GANGADHAR MITTAPALLI ITA NO. 1677/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06, AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE, WOULD BE RS.19,53,27,981/ - , WHILE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE OPENING BALANCE IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT, AS P ER AUDITED BALANCE SHEET FILED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08, AT RS.20,07,70,232/ - . WHEN THE MATTER WENT BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER JUST OBSERVING THAT DURING THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY EVI DENCE FOR THE CLAIM WHILE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PASSED A DETAILED AND REASONED ORDER FINDING DISCREPANCY IN THE OPENING CAPITAL ACCOUNT AMOUNTING TO RS.54,42,249/ - . BEFORE US, THE LD. AR HAS SUBMITTED AN EXPLANATION IN RESPECT OF THE DIFFERENCE IN THE OPENING CAPITAL ACCOUNT BALANCE AMOUNTING TO RS.54,42,249/ - AND REFERRED TO PAGE 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS THE LETTER REQUESTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REFER TO REVISED RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005 - 06 AND 2006 - 07, AN D ON THAT BASIS IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN THE OPENING BALANCE AS ON 1.4.2006. THE RECONCILIATION, AS BROUGHT TO OUR KNOWLEDGE, READS AS UNDER : - CLOSING BALANCE IN CAPITAL ACCOUNT AS ON 31.03.2005 (AS PER REVISED RETURN AY 2005 - 06 ) WHICH WILL BE OPENING BALANCE ON 01.04.2005 I.E. AY 06 - 07 19,52,69,058 ADD : PROFIT AS DECLARED IN A.Y 2006 - 2007 (AS PER REVISED RETURN FOR A.Y 2006 - 2007) 55,67,112.66 20,08,36,170.66 LESS : DRAWINGS SHOWN IN A.Y 2006 - 2007 65,938 CLOSING BALANCE AS ON 31.03.2006 20,07,70,232.66 3. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECONCILIATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONGWITH PAGE 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER 3 SHRINIWAS GANGADHAR MITTAPALLI ITA NO. 1677/MUM/2013 HAS FOUND THE DISCREPANCY OF RS.54,42,249/ - . AFTER GOING THROUGH THE RECONCILIATION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE CONVINCED THAT THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE AS HAS BEEN REFERRED TO BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. WE DO NOT FIND THAT THERE REMAINS ANY DISCREPANCY OF RS.54,42,249/ - . WE, THEREFORE, FEEL THAT NEITHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOR THE CIT(A) COULD APPRECIATE THE RECONCILIATION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND DELETE THE ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER AMOUNTING TO RS.54,42,249/ - . 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 3 R D DECEMBER, 2016. SD/ - SD/ - (PAWAN SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ( P.K. BANSAL ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATE : 2 3 R D DECEMBER, 2016 * SSL * COPY TO : 1) THE APPELLANT 2) THE RESPONDENT 3) THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 4) THE CIT CONCERNED 5) THE D.R, E BENCH, MUMBAI 6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR I.T.A.T, MUMBAI