Puneet Gupta, Kanpur V. Income Tax Officer-2(3), Kanpur

ITA 222/LKW/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3953 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-10-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 17-10-2016
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 02-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 131

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH SMC, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI P. K. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.222/LKW/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2012-2013 SHRI PUNEET GUPTA, 113/131-A, SWAROOP NAGAR, KANPUR. PAN:ABSPG5515B VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), KANPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI MANOJ KUMAR RESPONDENT BY SHRI AMIT NIGAM, D. R. DATE OF HEARING 17/10/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 1 8 /10/2016 O R D E R THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-I, KANPUR DATED 12/02/2016 RELATING TO ASSES SMENT YEAR 2012- 13. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL RELATES T O THE SUSTENANCE OF ADDITION OF RS.2,13,830/-. 3. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, CAREFULLY CO NSIDERED THE SAME ALONG WITH THE ORDERS OF THE TAX AUTHORITIES BELOW. I NOTED THAT IN THIS 2 CASE WHILE THE ASSESSEE WAS ON THE WAY FROM HIS RES IDENCE TO THE FACTORY, DADA NAGAR, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE VIA IN-LAWS HOUSE TO ATTEND THE RITUAL OF HER MOTHER-IN-LAW AND ALSO TO DROP HIS FA MILY MEMBERS, HIS CAR WAS INTERCEPTED AT JARIB CHOWKI CROSSING AND THE PO LICE FOUND A CASH OF RS.2,13,830/-. THE ASSESSEE IMMEDIATELY MENTIONED THAT THE MONEY BELONGS TO HIS FIRM M/S KAMAKHAYA INTERNATIONAL AND WAS BEING CARRIED BY HIM TO FACTORY FOR THE BUSINESS NEEDS IN ROUTINE COURSE. THE ASSESSEE SUBSEQUENTLY BEFORE THE ADI (INV.), KANPUR IN HIS S TATEMENT RECORDED ON OATH ON 09/01/2012 ALSO STATED THE SAME THING THAT THE MONEY BELONGS TO THE FIRM M/S KAMAKHAYA INTERNATIONAL AND HE CARR IES THE CASH IN THE EVENING TO HIS HOME AND WHILE IN THE MORNING HE BRI NGS BACK THE SAME TO THE FACTORY. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THE CO PY OF THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS FOR THE LAST TWO YEARS AND THE COPY OF THE CASH BOOK FROM 01/12/2011 TO 09/01/2012 BEFORE THE ADI. THE ADI D ULY EXAMINED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE CON CERNED INCOME TAX AUTHORITY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER STARTED THE INCOM E TAX PROCEEDINGS BUT IGNORED THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS TH E COPY OF THE CASH BOOK OF M/S KAMAKHAYA INTERNATIONAL WHICH PROVES TH AT M/S KAMAKHAYA INTERNATIONAL WAS HAVING THE SUFFICIENT CASH IN HAN D TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF RS.2,13,830/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER JUS T MADE THE ADDITION IN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS DULY CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A). IN MY VIEW, THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY DISCHARGED HIS ONUS EXPLAINING THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE AMOUNT WHICH WAS SEIZED FR OM HIS CAR. ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE NATURE AND THE SOURC E, THE ONUS GETS SHIFTED ON THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PROVE THAT THE CASH DOES NOT BELONG 3 TO THE FIRM M/S KAMAKHAYA INTERNATIONAL. NO SUCH E VIDENCE HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD. EVEN THE COPY OF THE CASH BOOK WAS DULY SUBMITTED BEFORE US IN THE PAPER BOOK ALONG WITH THE STATEMEN T OF THE ASSESSEE RECORDED U/S 131 OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THIS FACT, I SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.2,13,830/-. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18/10/2016) SD/. ( P. K. BANSAL ) ACCOUNTANT M EMBER DATED:18/10/2016 *SINGH COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR