I.T.O Wd - 2(4),Durgapur., Durgapur V. Prasanta Singh Roy., Kolkata

ITA 1913/KOL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4938 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 24-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 28-12-2012
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMITAVA BHATTACHARYYA
• Keywords: Peak credit
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH: KO LKATA [BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM & SHRI M. BALAGANES H, AM] I.T.A NO.1913/KOL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WD-2(4), DURGAPUR VS. PRASAN TA SINGHA ROY (PAN: AQEPS5884J) ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) DATE OF HEARING: 24.02.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 02.03.2016 FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI AMITAVA BHATTACHARYYA, SR . DR FOR THE RESPONDENT: SHRI ANIL KOCHAR, ADVOCATE ORDER PER SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM: THIS APPEAL BY REVENUE IS ARISING OUT OF ORDER OF C IT(A), DURGAPUR VIDE APPEAL NO. 207/CIT(A)/DGP/2011-12 DATED 18.09.2012. ASSESSMEN T WAS FRAMED BY ITO, WARD-2(4), DURGAPUR U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTE R REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 9- 10 VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 30.12.2011. 2. AT THE OUTSET, IT IS NOTICED THAT THIS APPEAL O F REVENUE IS TIME BARRED BY 19 DAYS AND REVENUE HAS FILED CONDONATION PETITION STATING THE REASONS. LD . COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT HE IS NOT INTERESTED IN OPPOSING THE CONDONATION PETITION. H ENCE, THE DELAY IS CONDONED AND APPEAL OF REVENUE I S ADMITTED FOR HEARING. 3. THE ONLY ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF REVENUE IS AGAI NST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN DIRECTING THE AO TO ASSESS THE PEAK AMOUNT OUT OF THE DEPOSITS MADE IN FIVE BANK ACCOUNTS. 4. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NOTICED FROM THE AIR INFORMATION THAT IT IS MAINTAINING FOLLOWING FI VE BANK ACCOUNTS: SL. NO. NAME OF THE BANK ACCOUNT NUMBER 1. AXIS BANK/RASHBEHARI BRANCH 253010100035398 2. AXIS BANK/MEMARI BRANCH 445010100035264 3. STATE BANK OF INDIA/TALIT BRANCH 20016352694 4. STATE BANK OF INDIA/CHOTKHANDA BRANCH 11877248002 5. STATE BANK OF INDIA/CHOTKHANDA BRANCH 11877244541 0 ACCORDING TO AO, THERE ARE TOTAL DEPOSIT IN THE BAN K ACCOUNTS AT RS.48,36,000/-. AS THE ASSESSEE COUL D NOT EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT, THE AO ADDED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS.48.36 LAKHS AS UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS U/S. 69A OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A) , WHO DIRECTED THE AO TO COMPUTE THE PEAK CREDIT AND ASSESSED ONLY PEAK CREDIT BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: THOUGH THREE GROUNDS HAVE BEEN PREFERRED THE ISSU E INVOLVED IS SAME, NAMELY ADDITION OF RS.48,46,894/- MADE BY THE AO. THE FACTS OF THE CAS E ARE THAT THE APPELLANT'S RETURNED INCOME HAS BEEN REJECTED BY THE AO. WHO HAS TAKEN THE VIEW THA T THE APPELLANT HAS NOT CONDUCTED ANY BUSINESS. HOWEVER, WHILE DISCUSSING ELABORATELY IN HIS ORDER AS TO WHY HE FEELS THAT THE APPELLANT'S INCOME FROM BUSINESS SHOULD BE TAKEN AS 'NIL' AS AGAINST T HE INCOME DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN, IT IS SEEN THAT WHILE COMPUTING THE INCOME HE HAS ASSESSED THE INCO ME DISCLOSED UNDER THE HEAD 'BUSINESS'. THAT 2 ITA NO.1913/KOL/2012 PRASANTA SINGHA ROY AY 2009-10 2 APART THE A.O. HAS ADDED RS.48,46,894/- BEING DEPOS ITS FOUND IN FIVE BANK ACCOUNTS HELD EITHER BY THE APPELLANT OR JOINTLY WITH HIS WIFE. THE APPELLA NT HAD SOUGHT TO EXPLAIN THESE DEPOSITS AS CASH SALES OF SEASONAL CROPS, AN EXPLANATION WHICH THE A .O. REJECTED. HAVING DONE SO, THE AO PROCEEDED TO ASSESS THE ENTIRE DEPOSITS AS UNEXPLAINED. THE APPELLANT'S SUBMISSION IS THAT HE HAS BEEN CARR YING ON BUSINESS OF DEALING IN AGRICULTURAL CROPS FOR THE LAST FEW YEARS AND THAT FACT HAS NEVER BEEN CHALLENGED IN THE PAST. HOWEVER, AT THIS STAGE, I DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO GO INTO THIS ISSUE AS THAT HAS LITTLE BEARING ON THE ADDITION MADE. I DO NOT SEE THE APPELLANT COMIN G FORWARD WITH ANY COHERENT EXPLANATION REGARDING THESE CASH DEPOSITS. THEREFORE, IN MY OPI NION, THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE AO TO ASSESS THESE CASH DEPOSITS AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES IS SUB STANTIALLY CORRECT. HOWEVER, IF THERE IS NO EXPLANATION FOR THESE DEPOSITS, IT WILL BE PROPER T O APPLY THE JUDICIALLY APPROVED PRINCIPLE OF PEAK CREDIT HERE. WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THIS ORDER, THE AO WILL COMPUTE THE PEAK CREDIT ACROSS THE FIVE BANK ACCOUNTS AND ASSESS THE INCOME ACCORDINGLY. T HESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE, THEREFORE, PARTLY ALLOWED SUBJECT TO THE DIRECTION GIVEN ABOVE. AGGRIEVED, NOW REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAINED FIVE UNDISCLOSED B ANK ACCOUNTS AND THERE ARE TOTAL DEPOSITS IN THE BA NK ACCOUNTS AT RS.48.36 LACS. WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS DIRECTED THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE WILL FILE PE AK CALCULATION AND AO WILL VERIFY THE SAME AND ASSESS THE PEAK CREDIT. WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND HENCE, THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. ACCORDING LY, THE APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 02.03.2016. SD/- SD/- (M. BALAGANESH) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 2 ND MARCH, 2016 JD. SR. P.S COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT ITO, WARD-2(4), DURGAPUR 2. RESPONDENT SHRI PRASANTA SINGHA ROY, 2A (2 ND FLOOR), 51B, KALI TEMPLE ROAD, KOLKATA-700 026. 3. CIT(A), , KOLKATA 4. CIT, , KOLKATA 5. DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA / TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, ASSTT. REGISTRAR .