Viraj Tanaji Dhasal, Ahmednagar V. Income-tax Officer, Ward - 4, Ahmednagar

ITA 2228/PUN/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5165 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 25-09-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJEEV GHEI
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

SMC IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, PUNE . , BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM . / ITA NO.2228/PUN/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 VIRAJ TANAJI DHASAL, AT & POST TANDULWADI, RAHURI KD, TAL. RAHURI, DIST. AHMEDNAGAR 413 705 PAN : ATWPD5676H . /APPELLANT VS. ITO, WARD-4, AHMEDNAGAR . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : SHRI ABHAY SHASTRI / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SANJEEV GHEI / DATE OF HEARING : 04.10.2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 05.10.2018 / ORDER PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM : THIS IS THE APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER O F CIT(A)-2, PUNE DATED 14-07-2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. 2. GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE EXTRACTED BELOW : 1. ON THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE CIT(A)-2 AND ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN TREATING THE AMOUNT AS UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT U/S.69A. 2. BECAUSE THE CIT(A)-2 HAS MADE WRONGFUL ADDITION FURTHER PROCEEDINGS OF INCOME AND DEMAND, AND THE PROCEEDIN GS IS LIABLE TO BE ANNULLED. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THE CIT HAS ERRED ON TREATING THE DEPOSITS IN BANK AS FROM UNEXPLAINED SOURCE. 4. THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL MAY KINDLY BE ALLOWE D TO BE AMENDED, ALTERED, MODIFIED ETC. IN THE INTEREST OF NATURAL JUSTICE. ITA NO.2228/PUN/2017 VIRAJ T. DHASAL 2 3. BRIEFLY STATED RELEVANT FACTS INCLUDES THAT THE ASSESS EE IS AN AGRICULTURIST AND DERIVES INFORM FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY. AS SESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS.4,15,000/-. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ON PERU SING THE LEDGER EXTRACTS, BANK ACCOUNTS, CASH BOOK, AO NOTED CER TAIN DISCREPANCIES ON THE CLAIMS OF THE ASSESSEE WITH RESPECT TO THE SOURCES OF CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS. AO INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69A OF THE ACT AND EVENTUALLY MADE AN ADDITION O F RS.12,98,141/- TREATING THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPO SITS IN THE BANKS. 4. BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE FILE D WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS GIVING THE DETAILS OF THE AMOUNTS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS NAMELY (1) BANK OF BARODA, RAHURI RS.15,40,800 /- AND (2) AXIS BANK, RAHURI RS.28,86,680/-. THE CIT(A), AFTER ANALYSING THE DEPOSITS MADE IN THESE TWO BANKS (PARA NO.4.1 OF THE ORDE R OF CIT(A)), ARRIVED AT THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSION : 4.4 THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS ARE OUT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME IS NOT AN ACCEPTABLE PROPOSITIO N. I THEREFORE FIND NO MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT WITH REGAR D TO SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS. FROM THE LIMITED LAND HOLDING, AS DISCUSS ED SUPRA THE APPELLANT HAS ALREADY SHOWN AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.4,15,000/- WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE AO AS WELL. THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO SHOW AS TO HOW HE WAS ABLE TO EARN SO MUCH OF INCOME FRO M THE LIMITED LAND HOLDING. I ACCORDINGLY RESTRICT THE AGRICULTURAL I NCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS.4,15,000/- WHICH HAS BEEN DISCLOSED BY THE APPEL LANT AND ACCEPTED BY THE AO AS WELL. THE APPELLANT WILL GET BENEFIT OF RS.4,15,000/- AGAINST THE CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT TO THE TUNE OF RS.51,62,480/-. THE APPELLANT IS THUS UNABLE TO EX PLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.47,47,480/- (RS.5 1,62,480 RS.4,15,000) FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE CONCLUSION OF THE C IT(A) RESULTING IN ENHANCEMENT OF THE ADDITION. ITA NO.2228/PUN/2017 VIRAJ T. DHASAL 3 5. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE FILED TH E PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WITH THE GROUNDS EXTRACTED ABOVE. 6. BEFORE ME, AT THE OUTSET, SHRI ABHAY SHASTRI, LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS NOT PROPERLY AP PRECIATED THE FACTS RELATING TO THE SOURCES OF CASH DEPOSITS AMONG THE BANK ACCOUNTS. LD. AR REQUESTED FOR REMANDING THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF CIT (A) FOR PROPER APPRECIATION OF THE FACTS AND THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSES SEE. IN THIS REGARD, LD. AR FILED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS IN FAVOUR OF REM ANDING. I FIND IT RELEVANT TO REPRODUCE THE SAME BELOW : 2. THE CIT(A) DID NOT CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING FAC TS THOUGH SUBMITTED BEFORE IT ALONG WITH THE PROOFS : (A) LOAN TAKEN FROM SBI BANK OF RS.3,00,000 WHICH WAS D ISBURSED IN CASH WAS REDEPOSITED IN THE ASSESSEE ACCOUNT. (B) HOLDING IN NAME OF ASSESSEE IS 0.47 HECTORS WHEREAS IN THE NAME OF HIS WHOLE FAMILY, HOLDING OF AGRICULTURAL LAND STOO D 4.94 HECTORS. CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY CONSIDERED THE HOLDING IN HIS FA MILY NAME TO 0.47 HECTORS. (C) RECEIPTS FROM AGRICULTURAL INCOME ARE NOT CONSIDERE D AMOUNTING TO RS.21,76,704/- (I) AHILYA HOLKAR KRUSHI 3,06,132/- (II) VIKHE PATIL SAKHAR KARKHANA 18,70,572/- (D) THERE ARE CERTAIN MONEYS BORROWED FROM FRIENDS AND RELATIVES WHICH WAS ALSO NOT CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE MAY BE ALLOWED TO PRODUCE THE PROOFS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE ABOVE CLAIMS. WE REQUEST YOUR HONOR TO RESTORE THE CASE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE RELIED HEAV ILY ON THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND PRAYED FOR CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF CI T(A) IN PRINCIPLE. 8. ON HEARING BOTH THE SIDES AND ON PERUSING THE ORDE RS OF AO AND THE CIT(A), I FIND THE AO/CIT(A) HAVE NOT CONSIDERED THE AS PECTS RAISED BY THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IN THE INTERES T OF ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, I FIND IT APPROPRIATE TO REMAND TH E ENTIRE ISSUE OF INVOKING THE ADDITION U/S.69A OF THE ACT TO THE FILE OF CI T(A) FOR ITA NO.2228/PUN/2017 VIRAJ T. DHASAL 4 CONSIDERING ALL THE ASPECTS MENTIONED ABOVE AND PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER ON THIS ISSUE. NEEDLESS TO MENTION, THE CIT(A) SHALL GIVE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SET PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. ACCORDINGLY, TH E GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR ST ATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 05 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2018. SD/- (D.KARUNAKARA RAO) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / PUNE; DATED : 05 TH OCTOBER, 2018. SATISH / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A)-2, PUNE 4. / THE PR.CIT-1, PUNE 5. , , SMC / DR SMC, ITAT, PUNE; 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// SENIOR PRIVA TE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE