ASHWINI RAVINDRA BIROLE, PUNE V. ITO WARD-6(3), PUNE

ITA 2016/PUN/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0341 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-06-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 15-12-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 69; 44AD; 143(3); 69A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.2015 & 2016/PUN/2019 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Ashwini Ravindra Birole, 2055, Sadashiv Peth, Anant Residency, 1 st Floor, Tilak Road, Pune- 411002. PAN : AFIPB3249R Vs. ITO, Ward-6(3), Pune. Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JM: These assessee’s twin appeals ITA No.2015 and 2016/PUN/2019 for assessment years 2015-16 and 2016-17 arise against the CIT(A)- 4, Pune’s as many orders; both dated 30.10.2019 passed in case no. PN/CIT(A)-4/ Ward-6(3), Pune/442/ 2017-18/455 and PN/CIT(A)-4/ Ward-6(3), Pune/214/ 2018-19/454 respectively; involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. Assessee by : Shri Suhas P. Bora Revenue by : Shri S. P. Walimbe Date of hearing : 14.06.2022 Date of pronouncement : 29.06.2022 ITA Nos.2015 & 2016/PUN/2019 2 2. It emerges at the outset that the assessee’s identical substantive ground(s) pleaded in both the appeals challenges correctness of section 69 unexplained money deposit addition of Rs.64,67,568/- and Rs.83,57,314/-; assessment year wise, respectively made in the lower proceedings. 3. There is hardly any dispute that the assessee all along has claimed to have carried out trading in steel sector as per her detailed paper books running into 62 pages in A.Y, 2015-16 and 117 pages in latter A.Y. 2016-17; respectively. Learned counsel vehemently argued that once the assessee has proved herself to have been carrying out the foregoing trading activity and all the relevant details of purchases and sales form part of records, both the learned lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in declining her the benefit of presumptive scheme of taxation u/s 44AD of the Act. 4. The Revenue has drawn strong support from both the learned lower authorities’ action making the impugned section 69A addition in these twin assessment years. 5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s vehement arguments and find no merit therein. We make it clear that apart from filing the foregoing documentary evidence, she has even failed to place on record either any VAT/sales tax registration as well as the corresponding business place’s details or go-down ITA Nos.2015 & 2016/PUN/2019 3 receipts or any other supportive evidence. Hon’ble apex court’s landmark decisions in Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC) and CIT vs. Durga Prasad More (1972) 82 ITR 540 (SC) have settled the law long back that any evidence filed in income tax proceedings has to be considered in the light of human probabilities and after removing all blinkers. We apply the very reasoning herein as well to note that apart from claiming herself as a trader in steel items in both these assessment years, the assessee has not proved her actual business activity at all so as to rebut the learned lower authorities’ findings. We thus affirm both these additions of Rs.64,67,568/- and Rs.83,57,314/- in principle. 6. The fact also remains that the assessee’s impugned bank account(s) had seen multiple withdrawals and deposits entries as it is evident from para 6 page 3 in assessment order dated 27.12.2017 for A.Y, 2015-16 before us. The factual position it is not different in the latter A.Y. 2016-17 as well. We therefore direct the learned Assessing Officer to consider addition of the “peak” sum only after considering telescopic benefit of former assessment year’s addition amount in latter assessment year; as per law within three effective opportunities of hearing. It is further made clear that it shall be the assessee’s onus only to claim and prove her “peak” amount(s) by filing all necessary detailed evidence at her own risk and ITA Nos.2015 & 2016/PUN/2019 4 responsibility in consequential proceedings which shall be considered in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. No other argument or ground has been raised before us. 7. These assesse’s twin appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order pronounced on this 29 th day of June, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) (S. S. GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 29 th June, 2022. Sujeet (DOC) आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)-4, Pune. 4. The Pr. CIT-3, Pune. 5. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “A” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.