The ITO, Ward-9(4), Ahmedabad V. Shri Narendrasingh Lakhabhai Rana, Ahmedabad

ITA 1889/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 85709 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-02-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 13-02-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 28-07-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DINESH SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: J M TRIVEDI
• Keywords: Business income

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO . 18 89 /AHD/20 1 1 A. Y. 200 8 - 0 9 ITO WARD - 9 ( 4 ), AHMEDABAD. VS SHRI NARENDRASINGH LAKHABHAI RANA, 1, MUKTRAJ SOCIETY, NR. ARJUN APT. PUNIT NAGAR FATAK JASHODANAGAR, AHMEDABAD. PAN: AGRPR 8524F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI DINESH SINGH , SR. D.R. ASSESSEE(S) BY : SHRI J.M. TRIVEDI , A.R. / DATE OF HEARING : 13 / 0 2 /201 5 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 20 / 0 2 /201 5 / O R D E R PER MUKUL KUMAR SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS AN A PPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE ARISING FROM THE ORDER OF THE L EA RNED CIT (A) - X V , AHMEDABAD , DATED 13 . 05 .20 11 . THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING AN ADDITION OF RS.68,68,179/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED UNSECURED LOAN. GROUND INS REPRODUCED BELOW: 1. THE LEARNED CIT (A) - XV, AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.68,68,179/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSEE OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED UNSECURED LOAN. 2. FACTS IN BRIEF AS EMERGED FROM THE CORRESPONDING ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S.143(3) DATED 30 TH OF SEPTEMBER, 2010 WERE THAT THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 18 89 /AHD/201 1 ITO WARD - 9 (4) AHMEDABAD VS. NARENDRA SINGH L. RANA FOR A.Y. 200 8 - 09 - 2 - INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY IS IN TRANSPORTATION BUSINESS. IT WAS NOTED BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN CASH RECEIPTS FROM RAJMOTI ROAD MOVERS. AS PER AO, THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO OFFER ANY EXPLANATION IN RESPECT OF CASH RECEIPTS AMOUNTING TO RS.19,37,413/ - AND RS.49,30,766/ - ; THEREFORE, A TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.68,68,179/ - WAS MADE. 3. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, LEARNED CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION AS UNDER: 5 GROU ND NO.3 IS WITH RESPECT TO THE ADDITION OF RS .6 8,68,179. THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE AS PER PARA 4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. WRITTEN SUBMISSION RECEIVED FROM THE APPELLANT IS PLACED ON RECORD WHICH INCLUDES COPY OF ACCOUNT OF RAJMOTI ROAD MOVERS. IT IS SEEN THAT THE RECEIPTS FROM RAJMOTI ROAD MOVERS TO THE EXTENT OF RS . 74,34,569 / - HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL RECEIPTS DECLARED AT RS 95,19, 16 4 / - IN THE P&L ACCOUNT BY THE APPELLANT. OUT OF THESE RECEIPTS OF RS . 74,34,569 / - FROM RAJMOTI, ACTUAL PAYMENTS OF RS . 69,45,159 / - HAD BEEN RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT AND REMAINING RS . 4,89,410 / - HAD BEEN SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET UNDER THE HEAD SUNDRY DEBTORS IN THE NAME OF RAJMOTI ROAD MOVERS. IN THIS BACKGROUND CASH RECEIPTS FROM RAJMOTI CANNOT BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINE D INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ADDITION IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 4. FROM THE SIDE OF THE REVENUE, LEARNED SR.D.R. HAS VEHEMENTLY OBJECTED THAT ON ONE HAND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED THE NECESSARY DETAILS DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND ON OTHE R HAND LEARNED CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED CERTAIN FRESH EVIDENCES. HIS SUBMISSION WAS THAT THAT MATTER SHOULD GO BACK TO LEARNED CIT(A). 5. FROM THE SIDE OF THE RESPONDENT - ASSESSEE, LEARNED A.R., MR. J.M. TRIVEDI APPEARED AND PLEADED THAT HE IS READY TO FURNIS H AN AFFIDAVIT OF THE L EGAL R EPRESENTATIVE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE REQUISITE DETAILS AND THE ACCOUNTS WERE DULY FURNISHED BEFORE THE AO WHO HAS ALTOGETHER IGNORED THOSE EVIDENCES. FURTHER, HE HAS DRAWN OUR ATTENTION ON A LIST OF TRANSPORTATION CHARGE INCOME RECEIVED FROM VARIOUS PARTIES. LEARNED A.R. ITA NO. 18 89 /AHD/201 1 ITO WARD - 9 (4) AHMEDABAD VS. NARENDRA SINGH L. RANA FOR A.Y. 200 8 - 09 - 3 - HAS POINTED THAT RAJMOTI ROAD MOVER WAS ONE OF THEM. THEREFORE , THE DEPOSITS WHICH WERE MADE IN THE SAID ACCOUNT WERE NOTHING BUT RECEIPTS OF BUSINESS INCOME. HE HAS ALSO INFORMED THAT AS PER EVIDENCES ON RECORD ON THE SAID TRANSACTION TDS WAS DETECTED . 6. HAVING C ONSIDERED THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE RECEIPTS WERE BUSINESS RECEIPTS DULY REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT UNDER THE HEAD TRANSPORTATION C HARGE INCOME . THE IMPUGNED AMOUNTS WERE ALSO SUBJECTED TO TDS. WE ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH THE SUGGESTION OF LEARNED SR.D.R. TO RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO AO FIRSTLY BECAUSE OF THE REASON THAT NO GROUND FOR INFRINGEMENT OF RULE 46A HAS BEEN RAISED BY THE AO; SECONDLY THE AO ON THE FIRST PAGE OF THE ORDER HAS NOTED THAT THE DETAILS WERE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONGWITH THE ACCOUNT OF RAJMOTI ROAD MOVERS. THEREFORE, WE FIND NO REASON TO DISTURB THE FINDINGS OF LEARNED CIT(A), THE SAME ARE HEREBY CONFIRME D AND THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. SD/ - SD/ - (ANIL CHATURVEDI ) ( MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIA L MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 20 / 0 2 / 20 1 5 PRABHAT KR. KESARWANI , SR. P . S . / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - III, AHMEDABAD 5. , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD ITA NO. 18 89 /AHD/201 1 ITO WARD - 9 (4) AHMEDABAD VS. NARENDRA SINGH L. RANA FOR A.Y. 200 8 - 09 - 4 - 6. / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER, / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD