Ravikumar Vinodkumar Lumbhani, Bhavnagar V. DCIT, Circle-2, Bhavnagar

ITA 1725/AHD/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5918 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-12-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 31-07-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3); 133A

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरणआयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद 瀈यायपीठ अहमदाबाद 瀈यायपीठअहमदाबाद 瀈यायपीठ अहमदाबाद 瀈यायपीठ ‘बी’ अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद।अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD (through web-based video conferencing platform) ] ] BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1725/Ahd/2018 Assessment Years : 2015-16 Ravikumar Vinodkumar Lumbhani, Prop: Shree Bhavani Bullion, 2 nd Floor, Yogiraj Complex, Sherdi Pith Dehlo, MG Road, Bhavnagar-364001 PAN : ACFPL 1210 N Vs The DCIT, Circle-2, Bhavnagar / (Appellant) / (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri S.N. Divatia, Advocate Revenue by : Smt. Jyoti Shah, Sr DR /Date of Hearing : 22/12/2021 /Date of Pronouncement: 22/12/2021 आदेश/O R D E R PER P.M. JAGTAP, VICE-PRESIDENT : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-6, Ahmedabad [“CIT(A)” in short] dated 23.05.2018 and the solitary issue involved therein relates to the addition of Rs.11,41,442/- made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) on account of alleged unexplained difference in the cash balance on the date of survey. 2. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 4 days on the part of the assessee in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. In this regard, the assessee has moved an application seeking condonation of the said delay and, keeping in view the reasons given therein, we are satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for the delay of 4 days on the part of the assessee in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. Even the learned Sr. DR has not raised ITA No. 1725/Ahd/2018 Ravikumar Vinodkumar Lumbhani Vs.DCIT AY : 2015-16 2 any objection in this regard. The said delay is accordingly condoned and this appeal of the assessee is being disposed of on merit. 3. The assessee, in the present case, is an individual who is engaged in the business of trading in gold bar. A survey under Section 133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ in short) was carried out in the business premises of the assessee on 18.12.2014. Thereafter, the return of income for the year under consideration was filed by the assessee on 20.09.2015 declaring total income at Rs.72,32,350/-. During the course of survey, the cash balance as per the cash book of the assessee was found to be Rs.1,35,872/- as on 18.12.2014. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found, on verification of the cash book, that the cash balance as on 18.12.2014 was shown to be Rs.12,77,314/-. He, therefore, required the assessee to explain the difference in the cash balance of Rs.11,41,442/-. In this regard, the following explanation was offered by the assessee in writing:- “... Our accounts finalise by our accountant at his office. At the time of survey, some transactions, were outstanding to The addition on this account comes to Rs.... in computer accounting at our accountant’s office, which are Rs.14,60,000/- cash paid to our bank account on 12.12.2014 and cash sales Rs.3,18,558/- on 17.12.2014. After accounted for the said entries, cash is Rs.1,35,872/-, which is as per our statement. After accounted for the said entries, resulted copies of the cash books are enclosed herewith. Bank slip to paid cash in bank account for Rs.14,60,000/- on 12.12.2014 is enclosed herewith for your ready reference....” 4. The above explanation offered by the assessee in respect of difference in cash balance was not found acceptable by the Assessing Officer. According to him, the assessee in his statement recorded during the course of survey had clearly stated that the relevant credit and debit cash entries were duly made before arriving at closing cash balance of Rs.1,35,872/- as on 18.12.2014. He, therefore, did not accept the explanation of the assessee and added the difference of Rs.11,41,442/- in cash balance as on the date of ITA No. 1725/Ahd/2018 Ravikumar Vinodkumar Lumbhani Vs.DCIT AY : 2015-16 3 survey as the income of the assessee in the assessment completed under Section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 27.12.2017. 5. The addition of Rs.11,41,442/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged unexplained cash difference as on the date of survey was challenged by the assessee in the appeal filed before the learned CIT(A) and the submissions made before the Assessing Officer were mainly reiterated on behalf of the assessee before the learned CIT(A) to explain the difference in cash balance. To support and substantiate the said submission, cash book from 10.12.2014 to 19.12.2014 along with copy of the bank statements were also produced before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A), however, found that the entries made in the said cash book did not match with the entries made in the cash book which was produced by the assessee before the Assessing Officer. He also noticed certain discrepancies in the said cash book and, based on this adverse findings, he rejected the explanation of the assessee and proceeded to confirm the addition of Rs.11,41,442/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged unexplained cash balance as on the date of survey. Aggrieved by the order of learned CIT(A), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. 6. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is observed that the difference in cash balance on the date of survey was sought to be explained by the assessee by filing a reconciliation before the Assessing Officer as well as before the learned CIT(A). The Assessing Officer, however, did not take cognizance of the said reconciliation on the basis of the statement given by the assessee during the course of survey wherein it was clearly stated by the assessee that all the relevant debit and credit cash entries had already been made before arriving at closing balance of Rs.1,35,872/- as on 18.12.2014. The learned CIT(A) also rejected the reconciliation prepared and furnished by the assessee on ITA No. 1725/Ahd/2018 Ravikumar Vinodkumar Lumbhani Vs.DCIT AY : 2015-16 4 the ground that the entries in the cash book produced by the assessee to support and substantiate the same did not match with the cash book produced by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings before the Assessing Officer. As contended on behalf of the assessee before the authorities below as well as before us, the cash book of the assessee was being maintained by an Accountant at his office and the assessee apparently was not aware about some missing entries when his statement was recorded during the course of survey. However, when the reconciliation statement containing mainly three entries was prepared and furnished by the assessee to explain the difference in cash, we are of the view that the same should have been verified by the Assessing Officer or by the learned CIT(A) from the relevant record instead of rejecting the same at the threshold on some technical ground. Since neither the Assessing Officer nor the learned CIT(A) has verified the reconciliation prepared and furnished by the assessee to explain the difference in cash balance as on the date of survey, we consider it fair and proper and in the interest of justice to send this matter back to the Assessing Officer for such verification. The assessee is directed to produce the final cash book for verification before the Assessing Officer along with relevant supporting evidence in the form of bills, bank statements, etc. and the Assessing Officer shall reconsider and decide this issue afresh on verification thereof. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Court on 22 nd December 2021 at Ahmedabad. Sd/- Sd/- (MAHAVIR PRASAD) (P.M. JAGTAP) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT Ahmedabad, Dated 22/12/2021 *Bt ITA No. 1725/Ahd/2018 Ravikumar Vinodkumar Lumbhani Vs.DCIT AY : 2015-16 5 /Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. ! / The Appellant 2. "# ! / The Respondent. 3. $%$&' # # ( / Concerned CIT 4. # # ( ) (/ The CIT(A)- 5. + , # &' , # # &' /DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad, 6. , ./ 0 /Guard file. / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY ह # $ज (Asstt. Registrar) # # &' ITAT, Ahmedabad 1. Date of dictation- ...22.12.2021...- ... 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member ...22.12.2021......... Other member ......22.12.2021............... 3. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S. - ......22.12.2021............ 4. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for Pronouncement .... 22.12.2021... 5. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk......22.12.2021...... 6. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk.................................. 7. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order..................... 8. Date of Despatch of the Order..................xx..