Vilas Alias Raju Shrawan Chaudhari, Jalgaon V. Income-tax Officer, Ward - 2(5), Jalgaon

ITA 1711/PUN/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3659 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 9 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-04-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 11-07-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JM AND SHRI DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.1711/PUN/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Vilas Alias Raju Shrawan Chaudhari, Ashta Vinayak Nagar, Savda Road, Raver Jalgaon – 425 502. PAN : AFIPC3875N .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनधम / V/s. ITO, Ward 2(5), Jalgaon ......प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri S. P. Walimbe सपनवधई की तधरऩख / Date of Hearing : 20.04.2022 घोषणध की तधरऩख / Date of Pronouncement : 27.04.2022 आदेश / ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JM : 1. This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2013-14 is directed against the CIT(A) - 2, Nashik’s order dated 01/05/2017 in case No. Nsk/CIT(A) -2 /92 16-17 involving proceeding u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ; in short "the Act. Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. Nor any Vakalat has been filed till date. Coupled with this, the case file indicates the registry has sent many notices to the assessee out of which four of them stand received back unserved. We thus proceed ex-parte against the assessee. 2 ITA No.1711/PUN/2017 Shri Vilas Alias Raju Shrawan Chaudhari 2. The assessee has pleaded three substantial grounds that CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts inter alia partly affirming unexplained addition to Rs.1,68,96,907/- out of Rs.3,30,19,093/- made by the Assessing Officer, adding advances of Rs.1,23,00,000/- and in granting agriculture income credit of Rs.36,75,000/- out of 49 lakhs, respectively, vide following detailed discussion. “5.13 I have carefully considered the facts of the case and rival contentions. On perusal of the same it has been observed from the assessment order, submission of the appellant including the balance sheets as at 31/03/2012 and 31/03/2013 filed by the appellant as under: Space intentionally left blank x x x x x x The contentions of the appellant were partly accepted to the above extent as mentioned in above tabular chart and the investment in advances for properties etc. were arrived at ₹ 2,36,08,074/- as against added by the A.O. at ₹ 3,30,19,093/-. 5.14 The appellant has claimed that amount of ₹ 1,23,00,000/- found noted in impounded material is not justified as the broker approached with proposal for purchasing agricultural land belonging to Manas Kulkarni, however, no such deal took place as I was unable to arrange the huge amount. The jottings in impound material is in pencil and hence the same is rough working. Shri Kulkarni appeared before the A.O. and stated that no such deal took place and no money was received. However, from the notice it has been noticed that the dates and payments were specifically mentioned. All the dates and payments are different figures. Therefore, the notice cannot be of proposed dates 3 ITA No.1711/PUN/2017 Shri Vilas Alias Raju Shrawan Chaudhari and amounts of payments. Therefore, the contention of the appellant cannot be accepted. 5.15 The appellant has contended in respect of other advances of ₹1,13,08,073 (₹ 2,36,08,073 - ₹ 1,23,00,000 ) that the impugned advances are shown in the balance sheet, the impugned advances were received back after the date of survey action. These contentions of the appellant are considered. However, merely because the amount of advances are appearing in the balance sheets prepared after survey action by showing substantial agricultural income and huge opening capital cannot be accepted. Further, contention of the appellant that the advances given were refunded back after survey does not prove that the advances given were from explained sources. The contention of the appellant about advances received and noted in the diary amounting to ₹ 26,28,500/- is accepted and the credit for the same is given. 5.16 From the balance sheets for the year ended 31/03/2011 and 31/03/2012 filed by the appellant and the assessment order of the A.O. and also the submission of the appellant and as discussed above, the sources available for making the above payments of ₹ 2,36,08,073/- in the year under appeal are as under : Space intentionally left blank x x x x x x Therefore considering the source available of ₹ 67,11,466/- for making payment of ₹ 2,36,08,073/-, the unexplained investment of the appellant works out to ₹1,68,96,607/- as against worked out by the A.O. at ₹3,30,19,093/-. The above unexplained investment is also nearer to the declaration of additional income given by appellant in survey action at ₹1,50,00,000/-. 5.17 In view of the above facts and discussion, the addition of ₹3,30,19,093/- is confirmed to the extent of ₹1,68,96,607/- and balance addition to the extent of ₹1,61,22,486/- is deleted. Ground No.1 is partly allowed. 4 ITA No.1711/PUN/2017 Shri Vilas Alias Raju Shrawan Chaudhari 6. Ground No.2 is that the A.O. is not justified in making disallowance of agricultural income of ₹ 24,50,000/-. It is requested to accept the agricultural income at ₹ 49,00,000/- as claimed by the appellant. The A.O. had made this addition in para 10 of the assessment order, which has been reproduced in earlier paragraph while deciding Ground No.1. The issue about agricultural income claimed by the appellant has been decided and the agricultural income has been accepted to the extent of ₹ 36,75,000/-. The agricultural income not accepted works out to ₹ 12,25,000/-. However, as the addition on account of unexplained investment has been confirmed to the extent of ₹1,61,22,486/- by considering agricultural income at ₹36,75,000/- and hence no further addition of ₹ 12,25,000/- can be justified. The agricultural income has been accepted as source for advances etc. given by the appellant to the extent of ₹ 36,75,000/-. Ground No.2 is treated as partly allowed. 4. We have heard the Revenue and perused the case file. Suffice to say, we note with the Revenue’s able assistance qua in first and for most issue herein that this unexplained investment Rs.1,68,96,607/- represents the total addition of Rs.3,30,19,093/- whereas the CIT(A) has already granted credit of explained source to the tune of Rs.1,68,96,607/- in light of assessee’s balance sheet itself (supra). The fact also remains there does not appear to be much an issue about the assessee being real estate dealer, ration shop holder and also deriving interest income all along. All these sources lead us to a prima-facie assumption that availability of extra cash in his hand in such a instance could not be altogether ruled out. Faced with the situation and in order to meet both the ends of justice, we are of opinion that a further relief of Rs.10 lakhs on estimation basis out of Rs.1,68,96,607/- would be just and proper. The impugned first addition 5 ITA No.1711/PUN/2017 Shri Vilas Alias Raju Shrawan Chaudhari of unexplained investment is upheld to the tune of Rs.1,58,96,607/- in other words. 5. The second issue herein is advance of Rs.1,23,00,000/- involving Shri Manas Kulkarni for purchase of land. The same is found to be based on in impounded material during the Sec.133A survey action dated 13.02.2013 as well as in light of ledger khata 012 and account book (Red colour diary) as well as the assessees survey statement. We thus quote section 292C of the Act that such material indeed carries presumption of correctness regarding contents therein to affirm the impugned addition. The assessee fails in this instant second ground therefore. 6. Lastly comes the third issue of agricultural income claim of 49 lakhs accepted to the extent of Rs.36.75 lakhs. We note the Assessing Officer’s detailed discussion on page 25 para 10 had forced the assessee to have produced sale bills 15 to 20 lakhs only out of 49 lakhs. We reiterate that he has already succeeded as the issue in getting 75% credit of agricultural income in the light of the CIT(A) discussion (supra). We therefore affirm the impugned balance amount forming subject matter of this last substantial ground. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. 7. This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in above terms Order pronounced in the Open Court on this 27 th day of April, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (DR.DIPAK P.RIPOTE) (S.S. GODARA) लेखध सदस्य/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्यधनयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER पपणे / Pune; ददनधांक / Dated : 27 th April, 2022. Ashwini 6 ITA No.1711/PUN/2017 Shri Vilas Alias Raju Shrawan Chaudhari आदेश की प्रनतनलनप अग्रेनषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपऩलधथी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)-2, Pune. 4. The Pr.CIT-2,Pune. 5. नवभधगऩय प्रनतनननध, आयकर अपऩलऩय अनधकरण, “ए” बेंच, पपणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 6. गधर्ा फ़धइल / Guard File. आदेशधनपसधर / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपऩलऩय अनधकरण, पपणे / ITAT, Pune. 7 ITA No.1711/PUN/2017 Shri Vilas Alias Raju Shrawan Chaudhari S.No. Details Date Initials 1 Draft dictated on 20.04.2022 2 Draft placed before author 26.04.2022 3 Draft proposed & placed before the Second Member 4 Draft discussed/approved by Second Member 5 Approved Draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on 7 Date of uploading of Order 8 File sent to Bench Clerk 9 Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11 Date of Dispatch of order