Chandrakant Batesing Raghuvanshi, Nandurbar V. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle - Dhule , Dhule

ITA 1840/PUN/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0316 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-07-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 24-11-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S P WALIMBE
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 40A(3); 143(3); 133(6); 44AB

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” Ɋायपीठ पुणे मŐ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA No.1840/PUN/2019 िनधाᭅरणवषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Mr.Chandrakant Batesing Raghuvanshi, 457, Ram Palace, Baherpura, Nandurbar – 425412. PAN: AAKPR 7576 A Vs The ACIT, Circle Dhule. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee by Shri Hari Krishna – AR Revenue by Shri S P Walimbe – DR Date of hearing 08/06/2022 Date of pronouncement 06/07/2022 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Nashik proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called as ‘the Act’) dated 23.09.2019 for the Assessment Year 2013-14. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.50,36,425/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act on account of alleged cash payments exceeding Rs.20,000/- made to M/s SSPS Sethi Brothers. 2. The Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in rejecting the affidavit of M/s SSPS Sethi Brothers ITA No.1840/PUN/2019 for A.Y. 2013-14 Mr.Chandrakant Batesing Raghuvanshi Vs. ACIT, Circle Dhule (A) 2 wherein it has been clearly stated by M/s SSPS Sethi Brothers that the entries of other persons have been incorrectly recorded in the accounts of Mr.Chandrakant B.Raghuvanshi(the appellant) even though these entries actually do not pertain to him. 3. The Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has erred in rejecting the affidavit issued by M/s SSPS Sethi Brothers without pointing out any discrepancy in the same and without bringing on record anything contrary to the facts sated in the said affidavit.” 2. The Ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) submitted that the AO and ld.CIT(A) has not considered the affidavit filed by the SSPS Sethi Brothers from who the assessee has made purchases. The SSPS Sethi Brothers had admitted that there was mistake in the ledger account submitted to the AO under section 133(6) of the Act. The affidavit was directly submitted to the AO by SSPS Sethi Brothers. 3. Ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) for the Revenue relied on the orders of Lower Authorities. 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. The AO during the assessment proceedings called for information under section 133(6) of the Act from one SSPS Sethi Brothers from whom assessee had made certain purchases. The SSPS Sethi Brothers submitted copy of ledger account of assessee in its books of accounts. The AO noted that there were cash payments made by the ITA No.1840/PUN/2019 for A.Y. 2013-14 Mr.Chandrakant Batesing Raghuvanshi Vs. ACIT, Circle Dhule (A) 3 assessee more than Rs.20,000/-, hence he made addition u/s 40A(3) of the Act. The following were the payments more than Rs.20,000/-. Sr.No. Date Cash (Rs.) 1 01.04.2012 2,50,000/- 2 03.05.2012 5,00,000/- 3 30.06.2012 5,00,000/ 4 30.07.2012 5,00,000/ 5 31.08.2012 5,00,000/ 6 30.09.2012 5,00,000/ 7 30.10.2012 5,00,000/ 8 30.11.2012 5,00,000/ 9 31.12.2012 5,00,000/ 10 31.01.2013 5,00,000/ 11 01.03.2013 2,86,425/- Total 50,36,425/- 5. Aggrieved by the same the Assessee filed the appeal before the ld.CIT(A). Before the ld.CIT(A) the assessee claimed that the copy of the Ledger account obtained by the AO was not provided to the assessee. The ld.CIT(A) directed the AO to provide the copy of the Ledger account. Then the AO provided the copy. In response to the same the assessee filed copy of an affidavit from the SSPS Sethi Brothers that their accountant made some mistakes in the Ledger account submitted to the AO. The SSPS Sethi Brothers has accepted that the transactions appearing in the ledger account submitted by the assessee are correct. The AO and the ld.CIT(A) merely rejected the affidavit as an afterthought. The relevant portion of ld.CIT(A)’s order is reproduced here as under : “8.6 In view of the aforesaid discussion, facts of the case and applying the ratio of decision cited supra and relevant provisions of ITA No.1840/PUN/2019 for A.Y. 2013-14 Mr.Chandrakant Batesing Raghuvanshi Vs. ACIT, Circle Dhule (A) 4 law it is held that affidavit is not evidence. Also the fact that the aforesaid affidavit was not filed before the AO in the assessment proceedings, it was filed during the remand proceedings and therefore, the affidavit filed by the appellant is an after thought, which cannot be given any credence to it. Hence, the affidavit filed by appellant's AR is rejected. From the case records of M/s SSPS Sethi Brothers in scrutiny proceedings for AY 2013-14, it is established that, the accounts are audited u/s 44AB and audit report are filed in assessment proceedings. The AO found the cash paid entries by appellant in the ledger extract of M/s SSPS Sethi Brothers which were not reflected in the books of account of the appellant. Thus, this is cross evidence utilized by the AO in the assessment of the appellant. In view of the above, the addition made by the AO is hereby confirmed.” 6. Thus neither the ld.CIT(A) nor the AO tried to verify the authenticity of the claims made in the affidavit. They have not cross examined the accountant or the person who made the affidavit but simple rejected it. 7. According to the assessee during the year the transaction was only of Rs.35,48,951/-, however, admittedly out of the same Rs.20,00,318/- has been paid in cash. The transaction as submitted by the assessee is reproduced here as under : “As per account of the appellant, during the year under consideration the total transaction with M/s. SSPS Sethi Brothers, Dhule was under: Opening Balance Rs. 1,24,354/- Total Purchases:..............................Rs. 358,48,951/- Total....... Rs. 36,73,305/- Payments by Cheques Rs. 16,72,287 Payments by Cash.......Rs. 20,00318...Rs. 36,73,305. Total:..................... Rs. 36,73,305...Rs. NIL....... ITA No.1840/PUN/2019 for A.Y. 2013-14 Mr.Chandrakant Batesing Raghuvanshi Vs. ACIT, Circle Dhule (A) 5 8. So there is no dispute that the appellant assessee has made cash payments of Rs.20,00,318/-. The AR has not filed before this tribunal copy of the affidavit, or copy of the Ledger account to understand the facts properly nor the Ld.AR has filed copy of the bills raised by SSPS Sethi Brothers on the assessee to prove the claim. However, neither the AO nor the ld.CIT(A) has verified the cash book of the assessee and cash book of the SSPS Sethi Brothers to understand the actual payments. The AO has not verified the actual purchases made by the assessee. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the issue needs to be verified properly by the AO, therefore, we set aside the issue to the file of the AO for proper verification. The Assessee shall file all the relevant documents before the AO at the earliest. The AO shall provide opportunity to the assessee. 9. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 6 th July, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (S.S.GODARA) (DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 6 th July, 2022/ SGR* आदेशकᳱᮧितिलिपअᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. ITA No.1840/PUN/2019 for A.Y. 2013-14 Mr.Chandrakant Batesing Raghuvanshi Vs. ACIT, Circle Dhule (A) 6 3. The CIT(A), concerned. 4. The Pr. CIT, concerned. 5. िवभागीयᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “ए” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅफ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // Senior Private Secretary आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, पुणे/ITAT, Pune.