ITO 18(2)(2), MUMBAI V. BEJOD CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 247/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 24719914 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 09-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

, , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES B, MUMBAI , , , BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.247/MUM/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 INCOME TAX OFFICER-18(2)(2) ROOM NO. 111, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, LALBAUG PAREL, MUMBAI-400012 / VS. M/S BEJOD CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD. 105-106, 1 ST FLOOR, B-WING, SHIRIN APARTMENT, B.J. MARG, SAAT RASTA, MUMBAI-400011 ( / REVENUE) ( !' # /ASSESSEE) P.A. NO. AAAAT9213D / REVENUE BY DR. YOGESH KAMAT-DR !' # / ASSESSEE BY SHRI RAMESH S. IYER $ % & # ' / DATE OF HEARING : 30/06/2015 & # ' / DATE OF ORDER: 04/08/2015 / O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DAT ED 24/10/2013 OF THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, MU MBAI. M/S BEJOD COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETIES LTD. ITA NO.247/MUM/2014 2 2. THE FIRST GROUND PERTAINS TO DELETING THE ADDIT ION OF RS.19,15,869/-, BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS), BY HOLDING THAT THE DEPOSITS BELONGS TO 21 PERSONS, PERTAINING TO EARLIER YEARS. THE CRUX OF ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY DR. YOGESH KAMAT, LD. DR, IS IDENTICAL TO THE GROUND RAISED BY CONTENDING THAT THE LD. FIRST APPE LLATE AUTHORITY DELETED THE ADDITION WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, TH E ASSESSEE ITSELF PRODUCED THE LIST OF DEPOSITORS, WH ICH INCLUDED THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT, PERTAINING TO 21 PERS ONS. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SUCH AS PAN TO PROVE THAT THE DEPOSITORS ARE GENUINE. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SHRI RAMESH S. IYER, DEFENDED THE CONCLUSION ARRIVED AT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER BY CONT ENDING THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) C ALLED FOR THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER FO R WHICH OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO PARAS 26 & 27 OF THE I MPUGNED ORDER BY PLACING RELIANCE UPON THE DECISION IN 43 I TD 697 (AHD.) 2.1. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE FACTS , IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A COOPERATIVE CREDI T SOCIETY AND IS IN EXISTENCE FOR THE LAST ABOUT 24 YEARS. TH E ASSESSEE SOCIETY IS TAKING DEPOSITS FROM ITS MEMBER S AND ALSO GIVING LOANS AND ADVANCES TO ITS MEMBERS. THE DEPOSITS ARE IN THE FORM OF SAVING ACCOUNT ON FIXED DEPOSITS. DURING THE RELEVANT TIME, THE SOCIETY HAD 5569 M/S BEJOD COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETIES LTD. ITA NO.247/MUM/2014 3 MEMBERS HOLDING SHARES IN THE SOCIETY, 1753 DAILY D EPOSIT MEMBERS AND 702 NOMINAL MEMBERS. THE DEPOSITS ARE ALSO TAKEN IN THE FORM OF LUMP SUM AMOUNTS WHICH AR E MAINTAINED FOR A FIX PERIOD OF TIME AT THE DESIRE O F THE MEMBER. THIS IS SIMILAR TO FIXED DEPOSITS WHICH AR E MAINTAINED WITH THE BANK. THE SOCIETY HAS ALSO POI NTED THE CERTAIN AGENTS WHO GO DOOR TO DOOR TO THE INDIV IDUAL DEPOSITORS ON A DAILY BASIS AND COLLECT THE AMOUNTS RANGING FROM ANYTHING FROM RS.10 ONWARDS. DURING THE RELEV ANT PERIOD, AS PER AIR INFORMATION, THE ASSESSEE HAD DE POSITED CASH IN THE BANK AMOUNTING TO RS.92,41,392/-. THIS CASH AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED FROM THOUSANDS OF DEPOSITORS MA INLY ON DAILY BASIS. THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE DETAILS WERE VERY MUCH AVAILABLE AND CAN BE VERIFIED ON SCR UTINY OF CASH BOOK AND OTHER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE SOCIET Y. IT WAS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT THE LIST OF ACCOUNT HOLDERS WITH DEPOSIT EXCEEDING RS.50,000/-, THE ASSESSEE DULY FU RNISHED THE LIST AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT PROPER E NQUIRY ADDED THE DEPOSITS AS INCOME OF THE SOCIETY FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. 2.2. IF THE OBSERVATION MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER, LEADING TO ADDITION MADE TO THE TOTAL INCOME, CONCL USION DRAWN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, ASSERTIONS MADE BY THE LD. RESPECTIVE COUNSEL, IF K EPT IN JUXTAPOSITION AND ANALYZED, WE NOTE THAT THE ASSES SEE, BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) , SUBMITTED THE PAPER BOOK CONTAINING THE TAX AUDIT R EPORT OF THE SOCIETY, AUDITED ACCOUNTS, STATEMENT OF DEPOSIT S, M/S BEJOD COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETIES LTD. ITA NO.247/MUM/2014 4 EXCEEDING RS.50,000/-, DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF THE DEPOSITORS, LIKE PAN, RATION CARD, AND ACCOUNT OPEN ING APPLICATION FORM FOR THE CURRENT YEAR AS WELL AS EA RLIER YEARS BY WAY OF ADDITION EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 46A AL ONG WITH THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE MANAGER OF THE ASSESSEE S OCIETY. SUCH DOCUMENTS WERE ADMITTED AND SENT TO THE ASSESS ING OFFICER FOR EXAMINATION AND ALSO TO FILE THE REMAND REPORT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FILED THE REMAND REPORT DATED 11/09/2013, WHICH HAS BEEN REPRODUCED IN PARA 15 ONWARDS OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE REJOINDER TO THE REMAND REPORT VIDE LETTER DATED 14/10/2013 WHICH HAS BEEN REPRODUCED IN PARA-16 ONWARDS OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 2.3. WE FIND THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX (APPEALS) DULY EXAMINED THE REMAND REPORT BY KEEPIN G THE SAME IN JUXTAPOSITION WITH THE REJOINDER OF THE ASS ESSEE AND FOUND THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE AUDITED AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER EXAMINED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AN D DID NOT POINT OUT ANY DISCREPANCY IN THE BOOKS. THE INVESTIGATION DONE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT RESULTED INTO ANY ADVERSE FINDING, MEANING THEREBY, NOTHING WAS PROVED THAT THE INCOME OF THE SOCIETY WAS FROM UNDI SCLOSED SOURCES, THUS, WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE EXPLANA TION OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE FINDING OF THE LD. COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX (APPEALS) HAS GIVEN SUMMARY OF ALLEGED UNVERIFIED D EPOSITS IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE SOCIETY, HOWEVER, ON EXAMINA TION THE DETAILS, THE SAME WERE EXAMINED AND VERIFIED BY THE M/S BEJOD COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETIES LTD. ITA NO.247/MUM/2014 5 ASSESSING OFFICER AND FOUND THAT THE DEPOSITS FROM 20 PERSONS AMOUNT TO RS.29,32,900/- WERE IN ORDER AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT RAISE ANY DOUBT ABOUT THI S AMOUNT, CONSEQUENTLY, WE ARE IN CONFORMITY WITH THE FINDING OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPE ALS) THAT THE ADDITION TO THIS EXTENT WAS GENUINE, THERE FORE, RIGHTLY DELETED. SO FAR AS THE AMOUNT OF RS.19,15,8 69/- IS CONCERNED, IT WAS FOUND THAT THESE DEPOSITS WERE FR OM EARLIER PERIOD, THUS, ADDING BACK THE SAME AMOUNT W AS TOTALLY UNWARRANTED, THUS, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE CONCLUSION OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 3. IDENTICAL IS THE SITUATION WITH RESPECT TO 30 PERSONS OUTLINED IN THE REMAND REPORT. THE ACCOUNT OPENING APPLICATION FORMS WERE AVAILABLE. THE TOTAL DEPOSITS MADE BY THIS 30 PERSONS WAS THE TUNE OF RS.27,62,469/- . THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WA S THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.19,15,869/- BELONG TO 20 PERSONS ( WHICH PERTAINS TO EARLIER YEARS) OUT OF THESE 30 PERSONS, THEREFORE, NO ADDITION IS WARRANTED. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DULY EXAMINED THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF T HE SOCIETY AND THE DETAILS OF SUCH PERSON HAS BEEN LIS TED IN PARA 22 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, WHICH IS NOT BEING R EPEATED FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY AND ARE DULY AVAILABLE IN T HE IMPUGNED ORDER. THESE DEPOSITS WERE UNCONTROVERTEDL Y FROM THE EARLIER YEARS, THUS, THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF ADDING THE SAME IN THE IMPUGNED YEARS, CONSEQUENTLY , WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE LD . M/S BEJOD COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETIES LTD. ITA NO.247/MUM/2014 6 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). THE RATIO L AID DOWN IN CIT VS DAULAT RAM RAWATMAL (1973) 87 ITR 34 9 (SC), SHIR LEKHA BANERJEE & ORS. VS CIT 49 ITR 112 (SC), ROSHAN DI HATTI VS CIT 107 ITR 938 (SC), NORTHERN B ENGAL JUTE TRADING COMPANY VS CIT 70 ITR 407 (CAL.) SUPPO RTS OUR VIEW AS THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY DISCHARGED THE ON US BY EXPLAINING THE SUSPICION AROSE IN THE MIND OF THE L D. ASSESSING OFFICER, THUS, THE STAND OF THE LD. COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS AFFIRMED. FINALLY, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN TH E PRESENCE OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOTH SIDES AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON 30/06/2015. SD/ - (RAJENDRA) SD/ - (JOGINDER SINGH) '# / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $# / JUDICIAL MEMBER $ % MUMBAI; ( DATED :04/08/2015 F{X~{T? P.S/. . . %$&'()(*& / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. *+,- / THE APPELLANT 2. ./,- / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 0 0 $ 1# ( *+ ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. 0 0 $ 1# / CIT(A)- , MUMBAI 5. 34 .# , 0 *+' * 5 , $ % / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 6! 7% / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, /3+# .# //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , $ % / ITAT, MUMBAI,