The ITO, Vidisha V. Shri Ummed Singh Raghuwanshi, Vidisha

ITA 210/IND/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 59468 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-02-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 18-08-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARUN DEWAN
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHISH GOYALCA
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Additional evidence; Corroborative evidences

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 209 AND 210/IND/2011 A.YS. 2004-05 AND 2005-06 INCOME TAX OFFICER VIDISHA ... APPELLANT VS SHRI UMMED SINGH RAGHUVANSHI GANJ BASODA ... RESPONDENT CO NOS. 52 AND 53/IND/2011 ARISING OUT OF ITA NOS. 209 AND 210/IND/2011 A.YS. 2004-05 AND 2005-06 SHRI UMMED SINGH RAGHUVANSHI GANJ BASODA ... OBJECTOR VS INCOME TAX OFFICER VIDISHA ... RESPONDENT 2 REVENUE BY : SHRI ARUN DEWAN, SR. DR ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ASHISH GOYAL,CA DATE OF HEARING : 31.1.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 1.2.2012 O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH THESE ARE THE APPEALS BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE OR DER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 6.5.2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 AND 2005-06 ON THE COM MON GROUND THAT LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, ON THE F ACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, ERRED IN DELETING THE AD DITION OF RS.8,66,900/- AND RS.10,42,500/-, RESPECTIVELY, MAD E ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITS ON VARIOUS DATES BY THE A SSESSEE IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT, WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE THROUGH ITS CROSS OBJECTION HAS CHALLENGED THE FRAMING OF ASSESSMENT WITHOUT JURISDICTION WHICH WAS CLAIMED TO BE VOID AB INITIO AND, THEREFORE, LIABLE TO BE QUASHED AND FURTHER NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED BEYOND THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION. 3 2. DURING HEARING OF THESE APPEALS, THE LEARNED SEN IOR DR MERELY RELIED UPON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT WHILE COMIN G TO A PARTICULAR CONCLUSION THE REMAND REPORT WAS OBTAINE D FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN WHICH NO ADVERSE FINDING/COMME NTS WERE SUGGESTED BY HIM. IT WAS FURTHER CLAIMED THAT NECE SSARY DETAILS OF CASH DEPOSITS ALONG WITH ITS EVIDENCES WERE DULY FURNISHED BEFORE THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THIS FACTUAL MATRIX WAS NOT CONTROVERTED BY THE REVENUE. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON FILE. SINCE THE GROUND R AISED IN THE APPEAL AND THE CROSS OBJECTION IS IDENTICAL, THEREF ORE, THESE CAN BE DISPOSED OF BY A COMMON AND CONSOLIDATED ORDER F OR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL, DECLARED SALARY AND AGRICULTURAL INC OME IN ITS RETURN. IT WAS NOTICED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THA T THE ASSESSEE DEPOSITED CASH IN HIS BANK ON VARIOUS DATE S AS HAS BEEN REPRODUCED AT PAGE 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED ABOUT THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT TO WHICH 4 IT WAS CLAIMED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN AGRICULTURIS T, RESIDING IN A JOINT FAMILY SYSTEM, HAVING 200 BIGHAS OF AGRICULTU RAL LAND AND THE SAID CASH IS OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF AGRICULTUR AL PRODUCTS. HOWEVER, BEING UNSATISFIED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED THE IMPUGNED AMOUNTS AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSES SEE. ON APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE FURTHER FURNISHED THE NECESSAR Y DETAILS IN THE FORM OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES LIKE COPIES OF BAN K STATEMENTS, VARIOUS CONFIRMATIONS OF THE PERSONS FROM WHOM THE MONEY WAS RECEIVED, OTHER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES EXPLAININ G THE CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT, ETC. THE LEARNE D COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) VIDE LETTER DA TED 14.9.2009 ASKED THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR HIS COMME NTS ON THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED A SSESSING OFFICER EXAMINED THESE DOCUMENTS AND NO ADVERSE COM MENT WAS MADE IN THE REMAND REPORT MEANING THEREBY THAT THE SAME WERE ACCEPTED BY HIM. AFTER CONSIDERING THE TOTALI TY OF FACTS INCLUDING THE REMAND REPORT AND THE DOCUMENTS/EVIDE NCES FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINING THE CASH DEPOS ITS, THE RESPECTIVE ADDITIONS WERE DELETED. THE RELEVANT POR TION OF THE 5 IMPUGNED ORDER (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05) IS REPRODU CED HEREUNDER :- I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS AND DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT. I HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE REPORT OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER IN WHICH ALL THE SUBMISSIONS OF T HE APPELLANT HAVE BEEN EXAMINED IN DEPTH BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HE HAS ALSO GOT THE SAME CONFIRMED BY THE VARIOUS PERSONS BY TAKING THEIR STATEMENTS ALONG WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE ON OATH. THE A.O. HAS ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL REGARDING THE SOURCE OF THE ENTIRE DEPOSIT CASH AMO UNT TO RS. 10,60,900/- MADE BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR. ALL THE DEPOSITS MADE BY THE APPELLANT HAS BE EN DULY VERIFIED, EXAMINED AND ACCEPTED BY THE A.O. T HE A.O. HAS NOT NOTICED ANY DEFECTS AND DISCREPANCIES IN THE DETAILS FILED AND THE EVIDENCES FURNISHED U/R 4 6A. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE A.O. WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS. 8,66,900/- AND THE SAME STANDS DELETED. 4. IDENTICALLY, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 ALS O THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FOUND THE CASH DEPOSIT AS EXPLAINED AND DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS . 10,42,500/- OUT OF THE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 12,40,50 0/- (FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06) AND RS. 8,66,900/- OUT OF RS. 10,60,900/- (FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05). IT IS W ORTH MENTIONING HERE THAT WHEREVER THE ASSESSEE COULD NO T EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF SUCH DEPOSIT, THE ADDITION WAS SUSTAI NED AND THE 6 DEPARTMENT HAS NOT ADDUCED ANY EVIDENCE CONTRADICTI NG THE STAND OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS), THEREFORE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE CONCLUSION D RAWN BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, CONSEQUENTLY, THE SAME I S UPHELD, RESULTING INTO DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL OF THE REVEN UE. 5. SO FAR AS THE CROSS OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASS ESSEE ARE CONCERNED, DURING HEARING, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS THE SAME, THEREFORE, THESE A RE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. FINALLY, THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN IN THE PRESENCE O F LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOTH THE SIDES AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING. SD SD (R.C.SHARMA) (JOGINDER SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 1.2.2012 COPY TO: APPELLANT, RESPONDENT, CIT, CIT(A), DR, GU ARD FILE DN/-