The ACIT, Circle-8, Surat V. Shri Sunil Rajendranath Gupta, Surat

ITA 2007/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 94785 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 19-11-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 07-09-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NAGENDRA SINGH
• Keywords: Salary income
• Section: 143(3); 68

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 2007/AHD/2012 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-8, SURAT VS SH. SUNIL RAJENDRANATH GUPTA, B-4047, SUNSHINE PARK, MAGADALLA, OPP. L&T COLONY, SURAT PAN : ABXPG 2906 P / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI NAGENDRA SINGH, SR DR ASSESSEE(S) BY : NONE / DATE OF HEARING : 19/11/2015 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30/11/2015 / O R D E R PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE OR DER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-V, SURAT DATED 12.06.2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE, AS CULLED OUT FROM THE RECORDS, ARE AS UNDER:- 3. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL STATED TO BE HAVIN G INCOME FROM SALARY, HOUSE PROPERTY AND CAPITAL GAINS. THE ASSESSEE FILE D HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ON 06.07.2009, DECLARING TO TAL INCOME OF RS.13,44,210/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND THEREAFTER, ASSESSMENT WAS MADE U/S 143(3) VIDE ORD ER DATED 26.12.2011 ITA NO. 2007/AHD/2012 ACIT VS. SHRI SUNIL RAJENDRANATH GUPTA FOR AY 2009-10 - 2 - AND THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS.26,37,110 /-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE CARRIE D THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO VIDE ORDER DATED 12.06.20 12 ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GR OUNDS:- 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DIRECTING TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.12,92,901/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXP LAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER. 3. IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 4. THAT THE REVENUE CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, ALT ER OR WITHDRAW ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 4. TODAY, AT THE TIME OF HEARING, ON BEHALF OF LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, AN ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT. THE REA SON FOR SEEKING ADJOURNMENT WAS NOT FOUND CONVINCING AND THEREFORE, THE ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION IS REJECTED AND, WE THUS PROCEED TO DIS POSE OF THE APPEAL ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD EX-PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. 5. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED CASH IN TWO BANK ACCOUNTS I.E., SBI (RS.203750/-) AND ICICI BANK ACCOUNTS (RS.12,92,901 /-). THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS, TO WH ICH THE ASSESSEE INTER ALIA SUBMITTED THAT IT TO BE OUT OF THE WITHDRAWALS MADE EARLIER. THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FULLY ACCEPTED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF CASH DEPOSITS T O THE EXTENT OF RS.2,03,750/- IN SBI BANK ACCOUNT, BUT THE CASH DEP OSITS IN ICICI BANK ITA NO. 2007/AHD/2012 ACIT VS. SHRI SUNIL RAJENDRANATH GUPTA FOR AY 2009-10 - 3 - AMOUNTING TO RS.12,92,901/- WAS TREATED AS UNEXPLAI NED CASH CREDITS AND TAXED U/S 68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. AGGRIEVED BY T HE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO DELETED THE ADDITION BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- 5.3 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND A LSO THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE AR OF THE APPELLANT. THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT IS SELF EXPLANATORY AND DOES NOT NEED MUCH ELABORATION. IN MY OPINION, THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT APPEARS TO BE E XPLAINED IN THE LIGHT ABOVE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. HENCE, THE ADDITION M ADE ON THIS ACCOUNT IS HEREBY DELETED AND THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE RE VENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. BEFORE US, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPR ESENTATIVE POINTED OUT TO THE VARIOUS OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER AND SUBMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE BEEN UPHELD. HE, THUS, SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIV E AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT IN THE PRESENT CA SE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY A CRYPTIC ORDER WITHOUT GIVING ANY FINDING (THE OPERATIVE PORTION O F ORDER IS REPRODUCED HEREINABOVE). IT IS A SETTLED LAW THAT THE CIT(A) MUST PASS A REASONED ORDER WHICH SHOULD REFLECT APPLICATION OF MIND ON THE ISS UES/POINTS RAISED BEFORE HIM. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF V ODAFONE ESSAR LTD VS. DRP, REPORTED IN (2011) 196 TAXMAN 0423, HAS HELD T HAT WHEN A QUASI JUDICIAL AUTHORITY DEALS WITH A LIS, IT IS OBLIGATO RY ON ITS PART TO ASCRIBE COGENT AND GERMANE REASONS AS THE SAME IS THE HEART AND SOUL OF THE MATTER AND FURTHER THE SAME ALSO FACILITATES APPRECIATION WHEN THE ORDER IS CALLED IN ITA NO. 2007/AHD/2012 ACIT VS. SHRI SUNIL RAJENDRANATH GUPTA FOR AY 2009-10 - 4 - QUESTION BEFORE THE SUPERIOR FORUM. IN THE PRESENT CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER SUFFERS FROM LACK OF REASON ING AND IS NOT A SPEAKING ORDER. WE, THEREFORE, CONSIDER IT APPROPR IATE TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER BEFORE LD. CIT(A) FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND AFTER ALLOW ING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO BOTH THE PARTIES. NEEDLE SS TO STATE THAT WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) SHALL PASS A SP EAKING ORDER AS MANDATED BY PROVISIONS OF SECTION 250(6) OF THE ACT. ACCORD INGLY, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 30 TH NOVEMBER, 2015 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (S.S. GODARA) JUDIC IAL MEMBER (ANIL CHATURVEDI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 30/11/2015 *BIJU T, PS !'#'$ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. !' # / CONCERNED CIT 4. # ( ) / THE CIT(A) 5. &'( ' , ' , ! / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. (-. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD