A.C.I.T., Circle-3, Asansol, Asansol V. Sri Rahul Kumar Saraf, Mumbai

ITA 2560/KOL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4352 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-10-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 13-10-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 08-11-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: DILIP LOYALKA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A, BENC H KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI N.V.VASUDEVAN, JM & SHRI M. BALAGANESH , AM ./ ITA NO.2560/KOL/2013 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2009-2010) ACIT, CIRCLE-3, ASANSOL VS. SHRI RAHUL KUMAR SARAF, 14A, PAPER BOX ESTATE, MAHAKALI CAVES ROAD, ANDHERI EAST, MUMBAI- 400093 ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. : AXWPS 8240 B ( /APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) /REVENUE BY : NONE /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI DILIP LOYALKA, ADVOCATE / DATE OF HEARING : 13/10/2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 19/10/2016 / O R D E R PER M.BALAGANESH, AM THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARISES OUT OF THE ORDE R OF LEARNED CIT(A), ASANSOL, IN APPEAL NO.307/CIT(A)/ASL/W-3(1) /ASL/11-12, DATED 02.09.2013, ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1) ASANSOL U/S.143(3) OF THE IN COME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). 2. THE ONLY ISSUE TO DECIDE IN THIS APPEAL IS AS TO WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,19,37,425/- TOWARDS CASH DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT U/S.68 OF THE ACT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THIS ISSUE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE I S A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN N THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/S GEET GOVIND GLO BAL. THE ASSESSEE IS AN IMPORTER AND TRADER OF EDIBLE AND NON-EDIBLE OIL, CHEMICALS, TIMBER, BLEACHING AND FULLER EARTH. LD. AO FOUND THAT THERE WAS CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR WHICH PROPER EXPLANATION WERE NOT ITA NO.2560/13 2 GIVEN AND ACCORDINGLY BROUGHT THE SUM OF RS.1,19,37 ,425/- TO TAX AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S.68 OF THE ACT. 4. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED VAR IOUS DETAILS AND ARGUED THAT THE SAID DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT WERE DULY REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS REGULARLY MAINTAINED BY THE ASSES SEE. LD. CIT(A) CALLED FOR REMAND REPORT FROM THE LD. AO VIDE PROCE EDINGS NO.CIT(A)/ASL/13-14/10-11, DATED 4-4-2013 AS BELOW :- ITA NO.2560/13 3 LD. AO SUBMITTED THE REMAND REPORT VIDE PROCEEDINGS NO.ACIT/CIR- 3/ASL/AXWPS8240B/2013-14/388, DATED 8/12-8-2013 AS BELOW IN RESPECT OF IMPUGNED ADDITION :- ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT FOR CASH DEPOSIT IN HDFC & DCB BANK A/C [RS.1,19,37,425/-] THE ADDITI ON MADE UNDER THIS HEAD FOR UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT IN THE FOLLOWING BANK A/C.- DCB A/C. NO.01921300000268 RS.82,77,525/- HDFC A/C.NO.06672320000301 RS.36,59,900/- LD. CIT(A) RELYING ON THE SAID REMAND REPORT AND FI NDING THAT NO ADVERSE COMMENTS WERE GIVEN BY THE LD. AO IN THE SAID REMAN D REPORT PROCEEDED TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE. 5. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- 1. THAT, THE LD. CIT{A}, ASANSOL HAS ERRED IN LAW A ND ON FACTS BY ALLOWING THE RELIEF OF 'RS.1,19,37,425/- WHICH WAS ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S.68 IN RESPECT OF CASH DEPOSIT S IN THE BANK A/C.; 2. THAT, THE LD. CIT{A}, ASANSOL HAS ERRED IN LAW A ND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ENTIRE ADDITION OF RS.1,19,37,425/- SI NCE THE VERIFICATION OF THE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF DCB AN D HDFC WAS CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN REMAND PROC EEDINGS WITH INCORRECT CASH BOOK HAVING VARIOUS DISCREPANCIES AS MENTIONED IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 26/12/2011; 3. THAT, THE LD. CIT{A}, ASANSOL HAS ERRED IN LAW A ND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ENTIRE ADDITION OF RS.1,19,37,425/- AS THE VERIFICATION WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING REMAND PRO CEEDINGS WITH INCORRECT CASH BOOK AND THUS THE RELIEF GIVEN BY THE CIT{A) IS ERRONEOUS. 6. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. WE FIND THAT OUT OF 25 CASES LISTED BEFORE THE BENCH TODAY, THE REVENUE HA S SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT IN ALL THE CASES. LD. AR STATED THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED BY LD. AO WHO HAD ACCEPTED THE CON TENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS. IN THESE CIRCUM STANCES, THE ITA NO.2560/13 4 ADJOURNMENT PETITION OF THE REVENUE IS REJECTED AND WE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OFF THE APPEAL ON MERITS ON HEARING LD. AR. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE CONTENTIONS OF LD. AR. W E FIND THAT LD. AO HAD ACCEPTED ALL THE CONTUSIONS OF ASSESSEE THAT E NTIRE CASH DEPOSITS WERE DULY ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND, HENCE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF ADDING ANY AMOUNT TH EREON AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S.68 OF THE ACT. WE ALSO FOUND THAT T HE LD. AO HAD NOT GIVEN ANY ADVERSE COMMENTS IN THE REMAND REPORT WITH REGA RD TO THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT THE LD. C IT(A) RIGHTLY GRANTED RELIEF BY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE REMAND REPORT. WE HOLD THAT THE LD. AO HAVING ACCEPTED TO THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE REMAND REPORT OUGHT NOT TO HAVE PREFERRED ANY APPEAL BEFORE US. W E DO NOT FIND JUSTIFIABLE REASON TO INTER WITH THE ORDER OF LD. C IT(A) IN THIS REGARD. ACCORDINGLY GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMI SSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 19/10 / 2016. SD/ - (N.V.VASUDEVAN) SD/ - (M.BALAGANESH) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /KOLKATA ; $% DATED 19/10/2016 & ()* /PRAKASH MISHRA , . / PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER, / ( ASSTT. REGISTRAR) & ' , / ITAT, 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 4 ( ) / THE CIT(A), KOLKATA. 4. 4 / CIT 5. 56 7 8 , 8 , / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. 7 9 / GUARD FILE. 5 //TRUE COPY//