KARNI SINGH RATHORE, Jaipur V. ITO, Jaipur

ITA 254/JPR/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 25423114 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-11-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 11-11-2011
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 25-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D K MEENA
• Assessee Lawyers: S K SHARMA

Judgement Text

1 ITA 254-11 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH SMC JAIPUR. ( BEFORE SHRI R.K. GUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ) ITA NO. 254/JP/2011 ASSTT. YEAR : 2002-03. SHRI KARNI SINGH RATHORE, VS. THE INCOME-TAX OFFI CER, 200, PACHIM VIHAR, VAISHALI NAGAR, WARD 3(4), JAIPUR. JAIPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.K. SHARMA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI D.K. MEENA DATE OF HEARING : 11.11.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22.11.2011 ORDER DATED : 22/11/2011. THIS IS AN APPEAL BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT A) RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS OBJECTING IN CONFIRMING THE ADDI TION OF RS. 2,00,000/- MADE UNDER SECTION 68/69 BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 3. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED RS. 2,00,000/- WITH M/S. HIMMAT SINGH & PARTY. THE ASS ESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT. HOWEVER, AS PER ORDER OF AO, AS SESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT, THEREFORE, HE MADE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. 4. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE LD. CIT (A) THAT ASSESSE E IS A REGULAR TAX PAYER SINCE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96 AND MAIN SOURCE OF INCOME I S JOB WORK OF COMPUTER AND INTEREST 2 FROM PARTIES. TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT, LE TTERS WERE ADDRESSED TO THE AO DATED 2.2.2005 AND 13.1.2005 IN WHICH SOURCE OF DEPOSIT W AS EXPLAINED. IT WAS STATED THAT ASSESSEE IS A SMALL ASSESSEE AND DOES NOT REQUIRE T O MAINTAIN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS PER PROVISIONS OF LAW, NEITHER HE HAS MAINTAINED ANY BO OKS OF ACCOUNT. HIS STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS FOR LAST SO MANY YEARS WERE FILED AND CONFI RMATIONS OF THE VARIOUS PARTIES FROM WHOM THE LOAN AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED BACK WAS ALSO FIL ED. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE INFORMATION WERE FILED BEFORE AO. HOWEVER, HE HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE SAME. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT SOME OF THE PARTIES WHO RETURNED LOA N AMOUNTS ARE ALSO ASSESSED TO TAX. THE LD. CIT (A) WAS ALSO NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXP LANATION. ACCORDINGLY, HE CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF AO. 5. THE LD. A/R FILED A COPY OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND OTHER VARIOUS DETAILS. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D/R PLACED RELIANCE O N THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND LD. CIT (A). ATTENTION OF THE BENCH WAS DRAWN ON VARIOUS P AGES OF PAPER BOOK AT PAGES 12, 13, 24 AND 25 AND IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT SIGNATURE ON TH E PAN AND SIGNATURE ON THE CONFIRMATION IS DIFFERENT. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THEY ARE GENUINE. 7. IN REPLY, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IN PAN, THE SIGN ATURE IS IN ENGLISH AND IN CONFIRMATION THE SIGNATURE IS IN HINDI. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE PARTY IS NOT GENUINE. 8. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSING T HE MATERIAL ON RECORD, I FIND THAT ASSESSEE DESERVES TO SUCCEED IN HIS APPEAL. IT IS SEEN THAT ASSESSEE IS SHOWING INTEREST INCOME FOR LAST SO MANY YEARS AND INTEREST FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN SHOWN AT RS. 18,00,790/-. FROM THE PARTIES TO WHOM THE LOANS WERE GIVEN IN THE PAST WERE RECEIVED BACK DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERAT ION. DETAILS OF SUCH PARTIES HAVE 3 BEEN GIVEN IN THE LETTER DATED 13.1.2005 FILED BEFO RE THE AO. NAME OF THE PARTIES ALONG WITH AMOUNT OF INTEREST RECEIVED FROM THOSE PARTIES HAVE BEEN MENTIONED AND TOTAL AMOUNT OF INTEREST IS SHOWN AS RS. 21,080/- AND FRO M THOSE PARTIES THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN RECEIVED BACK BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAS BEEN DEPOSI TED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH M/S. HIMMAT SINGH & PARTY. THEREFORE, IN MY VIEW, AO WA S NOT JUSTIFIED IN DOUBTING THE RETURN OF THE AMOUNT GIVEN IN EARLIER YEARS. THE A O HAS ACCEPTED INTEREST INCOME ON THE SAME AMOUNT BUT HE HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE AMOUNT RECE IVED BACK BY THE ASSESSEE. CONFIRMATIONS OF ALL THOSE PARTIES WERE FILED. THEY WERE NOT CALLED FOR BY SUMMONING UNDER SECTION 131, IF THE AO WAS NOT SATISFIED. TH EREFORE, ADDITION MADE BY AO WHICH IS CONFIRMED BY LD. CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED. ACCORDIN GLY I DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,00,000/-. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . 10. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22 .11.2011. SD/- ( R.K. GUPTA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER JAIPUR, D/ COPY FORWARDED TO :- SHRI KARNI SINGH RATHORE, JAIPUR. THE ITO WARD 3(4), JAIPUR. THE CIT (A) THE CIT THE D/R GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 254/JP/2011) BY ORDER, AR ITAT JAIPUR. 4