PRASHANT RANJANE, MUMBAI V. ITO 23(1)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 2458/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4293 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-07-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 01-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: JITENDRA SINGH; SATENDRA PANDEY
• Keywords: Salary income
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

. , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC , BENCH MUMBAI , BEFORE SHRI R. K. GUPTA , JM ITA NO. 2458 / MUM/ 20 1 3 ( ASSESSMENT Y EAR : 200 2 - 20 0 3 ) PRASHANT RANJANE, B - 102 , HEMA PARK, VEER SAVARKAR MAR G,BHANDUP (E), MUMBAI - 42 VS. ITO 23(1)(3) , MUMBAI - 51 PAN/GIR NO. : A DRPR 0252 M ( APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) /ASS ESSEE BY : SHRI JITENDRA SINGH & SHRI SATENDRA PANDEY /REVENUE BY : SHRI O.P.SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 1 ST JULY , 201 3 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10 TH JULY , 2013 O R D E R TH IS APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15 - 1 - 2013 OF CIT(A) - 1 9 , MUMBAI RELA TING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 2 - 0 3 . 2 . THE FIRST ISSUE IS AGAINST CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 52,115/ - UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. 3. DURING TH E ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING THE AO NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE CERTAIN CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK. THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN THE CASH DEPOSITS. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RECONCILIATION AND OTHER DETAILS, THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ABLE TO EXPLAIN CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 52,115/ - AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE CASH AVAILABILITY AND OTHER DEPOSITS , THE AO FOUND THAT TO THIS EXTENT THE CASH DEPOSIT REMAINED UNEXPLAINED, ACCORDINGLY, HE MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 52,115/ - . ITA NO. 2458 /20 1 3 2 4 . IN APPEAL, LEARNED CIT(A) A LSO CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO. 5 . AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION AND PERUSING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FOUND THAT THE AO HAS NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE WITHDRAWAL OF RS. 50,000/ - MADE FROM THE SAME ACCOUNT ON 10 - 4 - 2001 . IT IS FURTHER SEEN T HAT IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THERE WAS NO OTHER DEPOSIT EXCEPT A SUM OF RS. 71,500/ - IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. AS ON 30 - 3 - 2001, THE BANK BALANCE WAS OF RS. 67,105/ - . ON 10 - 4 - 2001, THE ASSESSEE HAS WITHDRAWN RS. 50,000/ - . THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE DEPOSITED A CASH OF RS. 71,500/ - . THE AO HAS NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE WITHDRAWAL OF RS. 50,000/ - FROM THE BANK, WHICH WAS USED FOR THE DEPOSIT FROM THE BANK. KEEPING IN MIND THE WITHDRAWAL OF RS. 50,000/ - , WHICH WAS WITHDRAWN ON 10 - 4 - 2001 AND WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE AS EXPLAINED BY THE LEARNED AR DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDING, HOWEVER, NO SOURCE HAS BEEN EXPLAINED THAT FROM WHICH SOURCE THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS. 21,500/ - WAS MADE. THEREFORE, TO THIS EXTENT THE ADDITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE AND NOT OF RS. 52,115/ - . ACCORDINGLY, I RESTRICT THE ADDITION TO RS. 21,500/ - AGAINST RS. 52,115/ - SUSTAINED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) . THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED IN PART. 6 . THE NEXT GROUND IS AGAINST CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 60,000/ - UNDER SECTION 68 OF T HE ACT. 7 . DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, THE AO NOTICED THAT THERE IS AN INVESTMENT OF RS. 60,000/ - IN NSC. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE AMOUNT IS DULY REFLECTED IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME AND ALSO IN THE SALARY STATEMENT. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE AMOU NT OF RS. 60,000/ - WAS PAID FROM THE SALARY RECEIVED FROM ROTA INDIA LIMITED . THE AO NOTED THAT THE ITA NO. 2458 /20 1 3 3 AMOUNT OF RS. 60,000/ - IS REFLECTED IN THE SALARY STATEMENT AND IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME BUT IT IS NOT REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET UNDER THE HEAD LOANS AND INVESTMENTS. THEREFORE, THE AMOUNT IS TREATED AS INVESTED FROM UNEXPLAINED SOURCE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION OF RS. 60,000/ - WAS MADE BY THE AO, WHICH HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) ALSO. 8 . AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION, I FOUND THAT TH E ASSESSEE DESERVE TO SUCCEED ON THIS GROUND. I NOTED THAT THE AO HAS HIMSELF ADMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 60,000/ - WAS REFLECTED IN THE SALARY STATEMENT, WHICH WAS INVESTED OUT OF SALARY INCOME. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF TREATING THE SAME FROM UNEXPLAINED SOURCE. IF DUE TO MISTAKE, THE INVESTMENT IS NOT SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET, WHICH DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE INVESTMENT IN NSC HAS BEEN MADE FROM UNEXPLAINED SOURCE. THE SOURCE HAS BEEN EXPLAINED AND HAS BEEN ADMITTED BY THE AO ALSO IN HIS ORDER. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 60,000/ - . 9 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED IN PART . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 10 TH DAY OF JU LY .2013 SD/ - ( ) ( R.K.GUPTA ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 10/07 / 2013 /PKM , PS ITA NO. 2458 /20 1 3 4 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / TH E RESPONDENT. 3. / THE CIT(A) , MUMBAI. 4. / CIT 5. / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, ( ASSTT. REGISTRAR) / ITAT, MUMBAI