Bijaya Kumar Sahoo, Jajpur V. ITO, Cuttack

ITA 24/CTK/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 81449 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-10-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 14-10-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 11-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S C MOHANTY
• Assessee Lawyers: B PANDA
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH , CUTTACK BEFORE S/SHRI S.V.MEHROTRA (AM) AND GEORGE MATHAN (JM) I.T.A. NO.24/CTK/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-2010 SHRI BIJOY KUMAR SAHU, UPPER BARUANPARA, AT/PO: KABIRPUR, DIST: JAJPUR PA NO.AQCPS 2276 A VS ITO, WARD - 1(2), CUTTACK APPELLANT RESPONDENT FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI B.PANDA FOR THE RESPONDENT: SHRI S.C.MOHANTY DATE OF HEARING: 14/10/.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 16 /10/2014 ORDER PER S.V.MEHROTRA, AM THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST ORDER DATED 30.11.2012 OF LD CIT(A), CUTTACK FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN INCOME FROM TRUCK PLYING BUSINESS, SALARY AND INTER EST FROM PARTNERSHIP FIRM I.E. M/S. BIRAJA SYNDICATE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MAINTAINED SAVING BANK ACCOUNT NO.592501794 WITH OPENING BALANCE OF RS.116 8/- AND IN THIS ACCOUNT, ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED AN AMOUNT OF RS.25,80,523/-. THE AO HAS POINTED OUT THAT VARIOUS NOTICES WERE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE BUT HE DID NOT COMPLY WITH TH E SAME AND, THEREFORE, HE PASSED ORDER UNDER SECTION 144 AND MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.25,80, 523/- UNDER SECTION 69A OF THE ACT. 3. BEFORE LD CIT(A), ASSESSEE HAD, INTER ALIA, TAKE N A GROUND THAT ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY COULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED FOR EXPLAINING THE MATTER. HOWEVER, LD CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION DISMISSING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL, INTER ALIA, OBSER VING THAT PRODUCTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, LEDGERS, RECEIPTS AND VOUCHERS COULD HAVE CLARIFIED THE ISSUE AND CASE LAW. BEING AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 2 I.T.A. NO.24/CTK/ 2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-2010 4. BEFORE US, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, INTER AL IA, TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUND OF APPEAL: FOR THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN FACTS AND IN LAW WHILE MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS.25,80,523/- WITHOUT LOOKING INTO THE FUNDAMENTAL FACTS AND THE SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS MADE AVAILABLE TO THEM, THE REFORE, THE ADDITION SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) IS HIGHLY ILLEGAL AND PREJU DICIAL AND THIS IS AGAINST THE LAW AND THE ADDITION MADE U/S.69A OF THE I.T.ACT AT RS. 25,80,523/- BY THE AO AND SUSTAINED IN THE APPEAL IS UNCALLED FOR AND LIABLE TO BE DELETED ENTIRELY. THE BASIC SOURCE AND REASON OF DEPOSITS ON PIECE/MEAL M ANNER MADE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED IN TOTO, THEREFORE, NO REASON OTHER T HAN THE ABOVE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE FORUMS BELOW. 5. LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT LD CI T(A) PASSED A NON-SPEAKING ORDER WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND AND NO REASONS WHATSOVE R WERE GIVEN ABOUT THE MATERIAL PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH PARTI ES AND PERUSED THE RECORD OF THE CASE. THE MAIN CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT CASH W AS DEPOSITED IN THE S.B ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND SAME WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE FIRM ACCOU NT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE DEPOSIT WAS OUT OF THE SALES PROCEEDS OF THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM. WE FIND THAT THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE NOT BEEN VERIFIED BY THE LOWER REVENUE AUTHORI TIES AND LD CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT PARTNER AND PARTNERSHIP FIRM ARE DIFFERENT ENTITY. HOWEVER, HE HIMSELF HAS OBSERVED THAT PRODUCTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, LEDGERS, RECEIPTS AND VOUCHERS COULD HAVE CLARIFIED THE ISSUE. UNDER SUC H CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY HAS TO BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR SUBSTANTIATING HIS CASE. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 7. ASSESSEE HAS RAISED ADDITIONAL GROUND REGARDING SERVICE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2). AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS, THEREFORE, SAME IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS P ARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. SD/- SD/- ( GEORGE MATHAN) (S.V.MEHROTRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTA NT MEMBER DATED, CUTTACK 16 /10/2014 3 I.T.A. NO.24/CTK/ 2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-2010 B.K.PARIDA, SR. PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT: SHRI BIJOY KUMAR SAHU,UPPER BARUANPARA, AT/PO: KABI RPUR, DIST: JAJPUR 1. THE RESPONDENT: : ITO, WARD -1(2), CUTTACK 2. THE CIT, CUTTACK 3. THE CIT(A), CUTTACK 4. DR, CUTTACK BENCH 5. GUARD FILE. TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, CUTTACK