Anant Veer Jalan, Mumbai V. Addl. CIT Range22, Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 2175/KOL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1324 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 10-11-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Salary income
• Section: 80C; 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH : KOLKATA [BEFORE HONBLE SHRI ABY. T. VARKEY, JM & SHRI M. BALAGANESH, AM ] I.T.A NO. 2175/KOL/20 16 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-1 2 ANANT VEER JALAN -VS- ACIT, RANGE-22, KOLKATA [PAN: AFHPJ 3711 K] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDEN T) FOR THE APPELLANT : SHRI P.J. BHIDE FOR THE RESPONDENT : SHRI ARINDAM BHATTACHARJ EE, ADDL. CIT DATE OF HEARING : 15.03.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.03.2018 ORDER PER M.BALAGANESH, AM 1. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE ARISES OUT OF THE OR DER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-18, KOLKATA [IN SHORT THE LD CI T(A)] IN APPEAL NO.307/CIT(A)- 18/14-15/ITO, WD-58(1)/KOL DATED 25.08.2016 AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ACIT, RANGE-22, KOLKATA [ IN SHORT THE LD AO] UNDER SECTI ON 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) DATED 29.03.2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE TO BE DECIDED IN THIS APPEAL IS A S TO WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION MADE TOWAR DS UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS IN THE SUM OF RS. 10LACS., IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THIS ISSUE IS THAT THE ASSESS EE IS A SALARIED EMPLOYEE DISCLOSING SALARY INCOME OF RS. 6,65,29,057/-. THE RETURN OF I NCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011- 12 WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 29.07.2011 DECLARIN G TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 6,63,02,316/- AFTER CLAIMING SET OFF INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY I N THE SUM OF RS. 1,50,000/- AND 2 ITA NO.2175/KOL/2016 ANANT VEER JALAN A.YR.2011-12 2 DEDUCTION U/S 80C AND 80CCF OF THE ACT. THE LD. AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE CASH DEPOSITS IN CITI BANK ACCOUNT AS UNDER: ON 26.04.2010 RS. 2LACS. ON 28.04.2010 RS. 5 LACS. ON 25.11.2010 RS. 3 LACS. TOTAL RS.10 LACS. 4. THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE SE CASH DEPOSITS TO HAVE MADE FROM THE OPENING CASH BALANCE OF RS. 990018/- AND OUT OF WITHDRAWALS MADE DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED A CASH BOOK F OR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR WHEREIN AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ALL THE CASH WITH DRAWALS FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT, AFTER REDUCING THE CASH DEPOSITS INTO THE BANK ACCOUNT AN D DRAWINGS OF RS. 2 LACS FROM THE SAID CASH ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSEE WAS LEFT WITH CLOSI NG BALANCE AS ON 31.03.2010 IN THE FORM OF CASH OF RS. 990018/-. THIS CLOSING CASH BAL ANCE WAS CARRIED FORWARD TO THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL AND OUT OF THAT THE SUM OF RS. 7 LACS WERE DEPOSITED ON 26.04.2010 AND 28.04.2010 BY THE ASSESSEE. WITH REGARD TO SUBSEQUE NT DEPOSIT ON 25.11.2010, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE SAME WERE MADE OUT OF A VAILABLE CASH BALANCE AND WITHDRAWALS DURING THE YEAR. THE LD. AO DID NOT ACC EPT THIS EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF THE SMALL WITHDRAWALS MADE BY THE ASSESS EE ON A FREQUENT BASIS WHICH IN HIS OPINION, WERE TO BE MEANT FOR INCURRENCE OF SOME EX PENSES. ACCORDINGLY, HE DISBELIEVED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND PRO CEEDED TO MAKE AN ADDITION OF RS. 10 LACS AS UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOU NT. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT IT IS VERY UNLIKELY THAT FREQUENT CASH WITHDRAWALS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN SMALL SUMS WERE LYING AS CASH BA LANCE IN HIS ACCOUNT WITHOUT IT BEING EXPENDED FOR SOME SPECIFIC PURPOSE. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO SHOWN ONLY A SUM OF RS. 103830/- AS DRAWIN GS IN CASH WHICH IS UNLIKELY GIVEN 3 ITA NO.2175/KOL/2016 ANANT VEER JALAN A.YR.2011-12 3 THE STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE, BEING A HIGH NET WORTH INDIVIDUAL. ACCORDINGLY, HE UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-18, KOLKATA IN HOLDING THAT TH E ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY MADE ADDITION OF RS. 10,00,000/- AS UNEXPLA INED MONEY IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT ASSESSEE. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-18, KOLKATA, OUGHT TO HAVE HEL D THAT THE SOURCES OF DEPOSITS MADE BY THE APPELLANT, IS FULLY EXPLAINED AND THUS, THE SAME CANNOT BE SAID TO BE UNEXPLAINED. 3. THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-18, KOLKATA, U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, IS BAD IN LAW. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO SUBMIT FURTHE R GROUNDS, TO AMEND, ALTER OR OTHERWISE MODIFY THE GROUNDS ALREADY TAKEN, IF NE CESSARY, BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE HAVE GON E THROUGH THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE LD. AR BEFORE US COMPRISING OF VARIOUS DOCUMENT S INCLUDING THE CASH STATEMENT FOR THE PERIOD 01.04.2010 TO 31.03.2011 ENCLOSED IN PAG E 4 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND CASH ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD 01.04.2009 TO 31.03.2010 ENC LOSED IN PAGE 19 OF THE PAPER BOOK. WE FIND FROM THE CASH ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD 01.04. 2009 TO 31.03.2010 THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE FREQUENT CASH WITHDRAWALS AND AFTER REDUCING T HE SAID CASH BALANCE WITH CASH DEPOSITS AND DRAWINGS IN CASH FOR PERSONAL EXPENSES , THE ASSESSEE WAS LEFT WITH CLOSING CASH BALANCE AS ON 31.03.2010 TO THE TUNE OF RS. 99 0018/-, WHICH WAS CARRIED FORWARD TO THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL AS OPENING CASH BALANCE. T HE ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED A SUM OF RS. 2 LACS. ON 26.04.2010 AND THE SUM OF RS. 5 LACS ON 28.04.2010 OUT OF THE SAID OPENING CASH BALANCE. APART FROM THIS, THE ASSESSEE HAD WITHDRAWN CASH FREQUENTLY FROM HIS REGULAR DISCLOSED BANK ACCOUNT AND HAD SUB SEQUENTLY DEPOSITED A SUM OF RS. 3 LACS. ON 25.11.2010, ON WHICH DATE THE AVAILABLE CA SH BALANCE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RS. 4 ITA NO.2175/KOL/2016 ANANT VEER JALAN A.YR.2011-12 4 565018/- AS PER THE CASH STATEMENT ENCLOSED IN PAGE 4 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HENCE, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY EXPLAINED THE SOURC E FOR CASH DEPOSITS MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE REVENUE WAS NOT ABLE TO PROVE WITH MATERIAL ON RECORD THAT FREQUENT WITHDRAWAL OF CASH MADE BY THE ASSESS EE WERE SPENT FOR PERSONAL EXPENSES OR UTILIZED FOR MAKING CERTAIN INVESTMENTS SO AS TO CONCLUDE THAT THE SAID CASH BALANCE WAS NOT AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE FOR EXPLAINING THE FUTURE DEPOSITS. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAD OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD S HOWN VERY LITTLE DRAWINGS IN THE SUM OF RS. 103230/- WHICH IS UNLIKELY GIVEN THE STA TUS OF THE ASSESSEE. BUT WE FIND THAT THE REVENUE HAD NOT MADE ANY ADDITION TOWARDS INSUF FICIENT DRAWINGS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THE ASSESSEE, BEING A HIGH NET WO RTH INDIVIDUAL, IS DERIVING SALARY INCOME OF RS. 6.65 CRORES. GIVEN THIS SCENARIO, IT IS NOT UNUSUAL ON HIS PART TO HOLD CASH BALANCE OF RS. 10 LACS AT ANY POINT IN TIME AT HIS CUSTODY. HENCE, WE HOLD THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT STANDS DULY EXPLA INED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO CASE MADE OUT BY THE REVENUE FOR SUST AINING THE SAID ADDITION. ACCORDINGLY, GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALL OWED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 21.03.2018 SD/- SD/- [A.T. VARKEY] [ M.BALAGANESH ] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 21.03.2018 SB, SR. PS 5 ITA NO.2175/KOL/2016 ANANT VEER JALAN A.YR.2011-12 5 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. ANANT VEER JALAN, 2901/02, C WING, RAHEJA ATLA NTIS, GANPATRAO KADAM MARG, MUMBAI-400018 2. ACIT, RANGE-22, KOLKATA 3. C.I.T(A)- , KOLKATA 4. C.I.T.- KOLKATA. 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. TRUE COPY BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVAT E SECRETARY HEAD OF OFFICE/D.D.O., ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHE S