The ITO,Vapi Ward-1, Vapi V. Shri Anzar Noormohammed Siddique, Vapi

ITA 2098/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 85811 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 25-02-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 25-08-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MK SINGH
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH AHMEDABAD , BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA. NO.2098/AHD/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:2008-09) INCOME-TAX OFFICER, VAPI, WARD-1, VAPI APPELLANT VS. SHRI ANZAR NOORMOHAMMED SIDDIQUE PLOT NO.1, NR. MODERN ENGLISH SCHOOL, IMRAN NAGAR, VAPI RESPONDENT PAN: BEPPS3812A /BY APPELLANT : SHRI M. K. SINGH, SR. D.R. /BY RESPONDENT : NONE !' /DATE OF HEARING : 25.02.2015 #$% !' /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :13.03.2015 ORDER PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, J.M: THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST T HE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), VALS AD, DATED 24.06.2011 FOR A.Y. 2008-09 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUND S: ITA NO. 2098/AHD/11 A.Y. 08-09 [ITO VS. SHRI ANZAR NOORMOHAMMED SIDDIQUE] PAGE 2 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 69A OF RS.23,33,674/-. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS RESTRICTED THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES UPTO 5% INSTEAD OF 20%. 2. ASSESSEE DERIVES INCOME FROM BUSINESS OF CIVIL A ND INTERIOR CONTRACTS. FIRST ISSUE IS WITH REGARDS TO ADDITION OF RS.23,33,674/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDI T. IN THIS REGARD ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED AS UNDER: FURTHER, ON VERIFICATION OF BANK ACCOUNT STATEMENT S, IT IS SEEN THAT ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED TOTAL OF RS.1,83,27,384/- IN BANK ACCOUNTS DURING THE YEAR A ND TOTAL SALES/RECEIPTS OF RS.L,47,10,543/-ONLY DISCLO SED IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. NO OTHER SOURCE OF DEPOSITS IN B ANK HAS BEEN SHOWN. THUS, RS.36,16,831/- IS EXCESS DEPOSITE D IN BANK ACCOUNTS. THEREFORE, A.R. OF ASSESSEE ASKED TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY SAID EXCESS DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUN TS OF RS.36,16,831/- SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE ACT AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INC OME . IN RESPONSE TO SAME A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THA T DURING THE YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED OF RS. 12,83,157 /- FROM SUNDRY DEBTORS FOR EARLIER YEARS AND SAME IS DEPOSI TED IN BANKS ACCOUNTS. FOR REMAINING DEPOSITS OF RS. RS.23,33,674/- NO EXPLANATION HAVE BEEN GIVEN. THE REPLY OF A.R. IS CONSIDERED CAREFULLY AND FOUND TO BE CORREC T AND ACCEPTED. SINCE, FOR THE REMAINING DEPOSITS OF RS.23,33,674/- NO EXPLANATION IS OFFERED, SAME IS T REATED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT AND ADDED TO TOTAL INCOME O F THE ASSESSEE U/S 69A OF THE I.T. ACT. PENALTY PROCEEDIN GS U/S. 271(L)(C) ARE ALSO INITIATED SEPARATELY FOR CONCEAL MENT OF INCOME BY FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCO ME. ITA NO. 2098/AHD/11 A.Y. 08-09 [ITO VS. SHRI ANZAR NOORMOHAMMED SIDDIQUE] PAGE 3 2.1 MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE A UTHORITY, WHEREIN VARIOUS CONTENTIONS WERE RAISED ON BEHALF O F ASSESSEE AND HAVING CONSIDERED THE SAME CIT(A) GRANTED RELIE F TO THE ASSESSEE. 2.2 SAME HAS BEEN OPPOSED ON BEHALF OF REVENUE INTE R ALIA SUBMITTED THAT CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S. 69A OF RS.23,33,674/-. ON OTHER HAND, NOBODY APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE DESPITE OF SERVICE, SO MATTER IS BEING DEC IDED ON THE ARGUMENT OF LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND MATERIAL ON RECORD. 2.3 AFTER GOING THROUGH RIVAL SUBMISSION AND MATERI AL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT BASIS OF ADDITION IS THAT ASSE SSING OFFICER FOUND TOTAL DEPOSIT IN THE BANK WAS RS. 1,83,27,384 /- WHEREAS THE SALES/RECEIPTS WAS OF RS. 1,47,10,543/-. THERE FORE, ASSESSING OFFICER THOUGHT THE DIFFERENCE RS. 36,16, 831/-BEING UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO E XPLAIN. THE STAND OF ASSESSEE HAS BEEN THAT DURING THE YEAR IT HAD RECEIVED RS. 12,83,157/- WHICH INCLUDES AMOUNTS RECEIVED FRO M THE DEBTORS AND DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. ASSESSIN G OFFICER WAS SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OFFERED FOR RS. 12,83,157/-, WHICH IS NOT SUBJECT MATTER BEFORE US BUT HE WAS NO T CONVINCED FOR BALANCE RS.23,33,674/-. THEREFORE, ADDED SAME AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. BEFORE CIT(A) AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT W HICH ITA NO. 2098/AHD/11 A.Y. 08-09 [ITO VS. SHRI ANZAR NOORMOHAMMED SIDDIQUE] PAGE 4 REVEALED THAT DIFFERENCE AS PER BOOKS AND BANK STAT EMENT IS ONLY RS. 62,094/- (1,73,63,924 -1,73,01,830/-). ST AND OF ASSESSEE HAS BEEN THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAD WRONGL Y ADOPTED FIGURE OF DEPOSIT IN BANK AT RS.1,83,27,384/- INSTE AD OF RS. 1,73,63,924 / -. THEREFORE, THERE WAS A GAP IN COMPUTATION BY ASSESSING OFFICER. CIT(A) FOUND SUBSTANCE IN THE S UBMISSION OF THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE. THE ASSUMPT ION OF ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE DIFFERENCE OF DEBIT AND CREDIT IN THE BANK STATEMENT ATTRACTS PROVISIONS U/S. 68 WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. THE REQUIREMENT OF THE PROVISION IS TO IDENTIFY THE CREDITS AND IF THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY ASSESSEE IS NOT FOUND SA TISFACTORY, THEN THE PROVISION OF SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT IS ATTRACTED. IN THIS CASE, ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT RECONCILED THE STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY ASSESSEE BUT LIFTED THE FIGU RE DIRECTLY FROM THE BANK STATEMENT AND APPLIED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. CIT(A) ON ALALYSIS FOUND THAT DIFFERENCE OF RS.62,094/- WHICH COULD BE SUNDRY ENT RIES IN THE BOOKS. IN THIS BACKGROUND, CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. SAME IS UPHELD. 4. NEXT ISSUE IS WITH REGARDS TO EXPENSES. ASSESSI NG OFFICER MADE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF VARIOUS EXPENSES AMOUNT ING TO RS. 75,210/-. ASSESSING OFFICER DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING FOUND THAT THESE EXPENSES WERE HAVING PERSONAL ELEM ENT AND IN SOME CASES SELF MADE VOUCHERS WERE RAISED. THER EFORE, A LUMP SUM 20% OF EXPENDITURE DISALLOWED. IT WAS RES TRICTED TO 5% BY CIT(A). UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, W E ARE NOT ITA NO. 2098/AHD/11 A.Y. 08-09 [ITO VS. SHRI ANZAR NOORMOHAMMED SIDDIQUE] PAGE 5 INCLINED TO INTERFERE IN THE FINDING OF CIT(A) WHO HAS RIGHTLY RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO 5%. SAME IS UPHELD. 5. AS A RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 13 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2015. SD/- SD/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 13/03/2015 TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA & & & & ' ' ' ' ('% ('% ('% ('% / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. +, / REVENUE 2. / ASSESSEE 3. // 0 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 0- / CIT (A) 5. '45 , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 589 :; / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / & ,