Rakhi Mishra, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 176/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5736 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-12-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 24-07-2017
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 19-01-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B SAGADEVAN JCIT D R
• Assessee Lawyers: A S SRIRAMAN
• Keywords: Peak credit

Judgement Text

, C/ SMC , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C/SMC BENCH, CHENNAI . , BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.NO.176 /MDS./2017 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 ) SMT.RAKHI MISHRA , C/O.S.MURALI, 1 ST FLOOR, RAJGIRI APARTMENTS, 155,MAMBALAM HIGH ROAD, T.NAGAR, CHENNAI 600 017. VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 17(4), CHENNAI. PAN ANVPM 6798 F ( / APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : MR.A.S.SRIRAMAN,ADVOCATE / RESPONDENT BY : MR.B.SAGADEVAN, JCIT, D.R ! ' / DATE OF HEARING : 22.11.2017 #$%& ! ' /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05.12.2017 / O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A)-5, CHENNA I DATED 22.12.2016 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. ITA NO. 176/MDS/2017 2 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS F OR ADJUDICATION. 1. THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) 5, CHENNAI DATED 2212.2016 IN ITANO.91/C1T(A)-5/20L4-15 FOR T HE ABOVE MENTIONED ASSESSMENT YEAR IS CONTRARY TO LAW, FACTS, AND IN T HE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THE CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITI ON OF RS.22,39,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT IN THE IDBI BANK ACCOUNT I N THE COMPUTATION OF TAXABLE TOTAL INCOME WITHOUT ASSIGNING PROPER REASO NS AND JUSTIFICATION. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE CASH BOOK SUBMITTED IN THE PROCEEDINGS WAS WRONGLY OVERLOOKED AND REJECTED ON WRONG PRESUMPTION OF FACTS, THEREBY VITIATING THE ADDITIONS. 4. THE CIT (APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE EXPLANATION GIVEN ON 20.12.2016 REPRODUCED IN PARA 9.3 OF THE IMPUGNED O RDER WAS COMPLETELY BRUSHED ASIDE IN RECORDING WRONG FINDINGS IN PARA 9 .4 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 5. THE CIT (APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE DECISIONS CITED TO CONFIRMING THE ADDITION WERE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE ADDITION SUSTAIN ED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER WAS WHOLLY UNJUSTIFIED IN VIEW OF NON RECORDI NG OF VALID REASONS IN. RELATION THERETO ESPECIALLY IN COMPLETELY OVERLOOKI NG THE FACTS AND THE DECISIONS CITED IN SUPPORT 6. THE CIT (APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THER E WAS NO PROPER OPPORTUNITY GIVEN BEFORE PASSING OF THE IMPUGNED OR DER AND ANY ORDER PASSED IN. VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES NATURAL JUST ICE WOULD BE NULLITY IN LAW. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE LD. A SSESSING OFFICER PERUSED THE CASH BOOK OF THE ASSESSEE, AND FOUND TH AT THE CASH BOOK HAS BEEN PREPARED BASED ON THE BANK STATEMENT SENT BY THE A.O. FOR EXAMPLE THE OPENING BALANCE AS ON 01.04.2010 IN ITA NO. 176/MDS/2017 3 THE CASH BOOK IS ` 5,25,400/- BUT AS PER THE BANK STATEMENT THE CLOSING BALANCE AS ON 31.03.2010 IS ONLY ` 73/-. FOR THE DIFFERENCE OF AMOUNT ` 5,25,327/-, NO EXPLANATION OR SOURCES HAS BEEN PROV IDED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED IN THE CASH B OOK THAT SOLD JEWELLERY FOR ` 4,98,253/- ON 29.04.2010 AT KANPUR. THE ASSESSEE DEPOSITED IN THE IDBI BANK, AMBATTUR CHENNAI. (NO C ASH ENTRY IN THE BANK ACCOUNT). ON VERIFICATION OF THE BANK STATEME NT AND THE CASH BOOK SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THE DEPOSIT OF ` 7,37,000/- AS BEING CONFIRMED BY THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND (SHRI RAVINDER KUMAR MISHRA) IS ACCEPTED. AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBSTANTIATED THE SOURCES NOR EVIDENCE FOR THE CASH DEPOSITS OF ` 1 IAKH AND ABOVE MADE IN THE IDBI BANK, AMBATTUR, CHENNAI TO THE TUNE OF ` 22,39,000/- ,THEREFORE THE SAME IS ASSESSED TO TAX. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDE R OF LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). ON APPEAL, LD.CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS WAS NOT SATISFIED EXPLANATION. HENCE, THE LD.CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. AGAINS T THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A), NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. ITA NO. 176/MDS/2017 4 4. BEFORE ME, THE LD.A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS DEPOSITED MONEY AS AND WHEN RECEIVED FROM HER HUSBA ND AND ALSO EARLIER WITHDRAWALS WERE RE-DEPOSITED INTO BANK ACC OUNT. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, LD.A.R SUBMITTED THAT ONLY PEAK CREDIT C OULD BE CONSIDERED AS UNEXPLAINED U/S.69OF THE ACT. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD.D.R SUBMITTED THAT IN SPI TE OF GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITIES TO THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE TH E CREDITS, THE ASSESSEE FILED TO ESTABLISH THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS. HENCE, THE ADDITION MAY BE SUSTAINED. 6. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED JUST BANK STATEMENT AND CASH BOOK FOR THE RELEVANT PERIOD WITHOUT EXPLAININ G EACH ENTRY OF DEPOSIT INTO BANK ACCOUNT. IN THE ABSENCE OF EXPLAN ATION OF ASSESSEE REGARDING SOURCE OF EACH DEPOSIT, IT IS NOT POSSIBL E TO HOLD THAT SOURCE OF DEPOSITS IS EXPLAINED. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE INTER EST OF JUSTICE I REMIT THE ENTIRE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF LD. ASSESSING OFFIC ER WITH A DIRECTION TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN EACH ENTRY OF DEPOSIT INTO BANK ACCOUNTS. IF THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINS EACH ENTRY OF DEPOSITS, THEN THE SAME CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS UNEXPLAINED U/S.69 OF THE ACT. WI TH THIS ITA NO. 176/MDS/2017 5 OBSERVATION, I REMIT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE TO THE FI LE OF LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 05 TH DECEMBER, 2017. SD/- ( ) ( CHANDRA POOJARI ) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 05 TH DECEMBER, 2017 . K S SUNDARAM. ' ( )!*+ ,+%! / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 3. ' ' -! () / CIT(A) 5. +0 1 )!)23 / DR 2. / RESPONDENT 4. ' ' -! / CIT 6. 1 45 6 / GF