SHRI NAWAB RAZA, Bhopal V. THE ACIT-2(1), Bhopal

ITA 183/IND/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6003 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 02-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MOHD JAVED
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

NAWAB RAJA - SMC ITA NO.183 OF 2016 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE SMC BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.183/IND/2016 A.Y. 2010-11 NAWAB RAJA, BHOPAL PAN ABHPR 8761 P :: APPELLANT VS ACIT-2(1), BHOPAL :: RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY SHRI HITESH CHIMNANI RESPONDENT BY SHRI MOHD. JAVED DATE OF HEARING 21.6.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 21.6.2016 O R D E R THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGING T HE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-2, BHOPAL, DATED 27.1.2016 ON THE GROUND THAT LD. CIT( A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION AT RS.12 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF ADVANCE RECEIP T AGAINST LAND TREATING IT AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. 2. SHORT FAC TS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE HAD MADE AN AGREEM ENT WITH SHRI OMKAR PATEL FOR SALE OF HIS AGRICULTURE L AND FOR CONSIDERATION OF RS.40 LACS. THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED ADVANCE OF RS. 12 LACS, HOWEVER, DUE TO SOME DISPUTE IN MEASUREMENT OF THE SAID LAND, THE SAID TRANSACTION COULD NOT TAKE PLACE, THUS, ENTIRE ADVANCE WAS FORFEITED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER TR EATED THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT ON THE GROUND THAT THE CASH HAD BEEN NAWAB RAJA - SMC ITA NO.183 OF 2016 2 DEPOSITED FROM DIFFERENT PLACES ON VARIOUS DATES AN D CASH CREDITS WERE NOT RELATED TO SHRI OMKAR PATEL. 3. ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), W HO CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTIN G THE EVIDENCES/CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED WIT H THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. BEFORE ME, T HE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT REVE NUE AUTHORITIES WERE NOT RIGHT IN MAKING/CONFIRMING THE ADDITION AS ASSESSEE HAD DISCHARGED HIS PRELIMINARY ONUS AND HAD PROVED THE IDENTITY, GENUINENESS AND CREDIT WORTHINESS OF MR. OMKAR PATEL BY FILING COMPLETE DE TAILS ALONG WITH NECESSARY SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS AS REQUIRED U/S 68 OF THE I.T. ACT. SHRI OMKAR PATEL, IN HIS AFFIDAVIT, ADMITTED THE TRANSACTION. THEREFORE, ADD ITION IS NOT JUSTIFIED. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT MAKE ANY INVESTIGATION OR INQUIRY IN RESPECT OF ADVANCE MONEY TAKEN FROM SHRI OMKAR PATEL, WHICH IS NOT JUS TIFIED. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISIONS IN CASES OF C IT VS. METACHEM INDUSTRIES (2000) 245 ITR 160 (MP); R.B.N.J. NAIDU V. CIT (195 6) 29 ITR 194 (NAG.); KANPUR STEEL CO. LTD. (1957) 32 ITR 56 (ALL); LAJWANTI SAI L VS. CIT (1956) 30 ITR 228 (NAG.). ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER S OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 5. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE OR DERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. I FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A PAPER BOOK RUNNI NG INTO 47 PAGES ALONG WITH WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, WHEREIN, THE RELEVANT DOCUMENT S HAVE BEEN ANNEXED. ASSESSEE HAS AGITATED THAT THE EVIDENCES LIKE, AFFI DAVIT OF MR. OMKAR PATEL, AGREEMENT ETC. FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT A PPRECIATED IN PROPER AND PERSPECTIVE MANNER BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NAWAB RAJA - SMC ITA NO.183 OF 2016 3 ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ABOVE JUDICIAL PRONOUNC EMENTS. LOOKING TO THE FACTS AND SUBMISSIONS THEREOF, AS NARRATED ABOVE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE MATTER REQUIRES RECONSIDERATION AT THE LEVEL OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER, CONSIDERING THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, EVIDENCES IN THE LIGHT OF THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS. THEREFORE, I SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. THE AS SESSING OFFICER IS ALSO DIRECTED TO EXAMINE THE EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN R ESPECT OF SHRI OMKAR PATEL AND STILL NOT SATISFIED, HE/SHE IS AT LIBERTY TO CALL H IM IN PERSON, FAILING WHICH, THE ADDITION WILL DESERVE TO BE DELETED. UNDER TERMS AS DISCUSSE D HEREINABOVE, THE MATTER IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFI CER TO REFRAME THE ASSESSMENT DE NOVO AS PER LAW. THE AO SHALL DECIDE THE ISSUE AFTE R GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE AT L IBERTY TO FILE ANY FURTHER EVIDENCE, IF ANY, IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATIST ICAL PURPOSES. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21.6.2016 . SD/- (D.T. GARASIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 21.6.2016 !VYS! COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT(A)/CIT/DR, INDORE