SHARIFA ABDUL RAZZAK MOTAN, MUMBAI V. ITO 13(3)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 2821/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0885 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 27-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 25-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: JITENDRA SINGH
• Section: 147; 68; 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C. SHARMA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO . 2821 / MUM./ 2014 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 07 08 ) SMT. SHARIFA ABDUL RAZZAK MOTAN FLAT NO.31, ASHIANA APARTMENTS 6, VASIL KHAN MARG NAGPADA, MUMBAI 400 008 PAN A OTPM3411L .. APPELLANT V/S INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 13 (3)( 4 ), AAYAKAR BHAVAN 101, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI 400 020 .... RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI JITENDRA SINGH REVENUE BY : SHRI JAVED AKHTER DATE OF HEARING 2 7 .0 7 .2015 DATE OF ORDER 31.07.2015 O R D E R PER R.C. SHARMA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TH E PRESENT APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 6 TH JANUARY 201 4 , PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER ( APPEALS) 24 , MUMBAI, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 07 0 8 . THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AS UNDER: 2. GROUND NO.1, RELATES TO RE OPENING OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT 'THE ACT' ). SMT. SHARIFA ABDUL RAZZAK MOTAN 2 3. BEFORE ME, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAKE SERIOUS ARGUMENTS WITH R EGARD TO THIS GROUND AND, THEREFORE, THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED . 4. GROUND NO.2, RELATES TO ADDITION OF ` 3 ,86,0 00, UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSIT S MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE T HE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE AMOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS THE REGULAR SOURCE OF INCOME FROM GIVING RELIGIOUS TEACHINGS. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FOUND TO BE SATISFACTORY BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER AND THAT IS HOW THE ADDITION WAS MADE BY HIM. 6. THE ASSESSEE CONTESTED THE ISSUE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED IN DETAIL AB OUT THE SOURCE OF THE AMOUNT S DEPOSITED IN THE BANK. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE SUBMISSIONS AND EVIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE AND, THEREFORE, HE CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS I N FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 7. BEFORE ME, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE TOOK ME THROUGH VARIOUS PAGES OF THE PAPER BOOK TO CONTEND THAT THE ASSESSEE SMT. SHARIFA ABDUL RAZZAK MOTAN 3 HAS INDIVIDUAL SOURCE OF INCOME IN THE IMPUGNED YEAR AS WELL AS IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR S AND OU T OF THIS, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE SOME SAVINGS WHICH WAS LYING WITH THE ASSESSEE IN THE FORM OF CASH AND THAT CASH WAS UTILISED IN MAKING DEPOSITS INTO THE BANK ACCOUNT. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND PRAYED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE CONFIRMED. 9. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS SEEN FROM THE PAPER BOOK THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ASSESSED BY THE INCOME T AX DEPARTMENT FOR THE LAST SO MAY YEARS. THE RETURN S OF INCOME FILED BY HER IN ALL THESE YEARS HA VE BEEN ACCEPTED. THUS, IMPLIEDLY ACCEPTING THE SOURCE AND THE INCOME AS DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE TIME TO T I ME. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO INVITED MY ATTENTION TO THE BALANCE SHEET, CAPITAL ACCOUNT AND CASH FLOW STATEMENT. NOTHING ADVERSE HAS BEEN FOUND BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WITH REGARD TO THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND OTHER DOCUMENTS. BY FILING THESE DOCUMENTS, IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION, THE ASSE SSEE HAS DISCHARGED HIS PRIMARY ONUS. THEREAFTER, THE ONUS SHIFTED UPON THE SHOULDER S OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER . THESE EVIDENCES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISBELIEVED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW MERELY ON THE BASIS OF DOUBTS AND GUESS WORK. SINCE NOTHING ADVERSE HA S BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS VERY WELL SMT. SHARIFA ABDUL RAZZAK MOTAN 4 DISCHARGES HIS BURDEN IN EXPLAINING THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. IN MY OPINION, THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED HER BURDEN AS WAS LAID UPON HER IN SECTIONS 68 AND 69 OF THE ACT. THUS, ACCORDING TO ME, THE ADDITION OF ` 3,86,000, IS NOT JUSTIFIED ON FACTS AS WELL AS IN LAW AND THE SAME IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. GROUND NO.2, IS ALLOWED. 10. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONO UNCED IN THE OPEN COURT O N 31.07.2015 SD/ - R.C. SHARMA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED : 31.07.2015 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : (1) THE ASSESSEE; (2) THE REVENUE; (3) THE CIT(A); (4) THE CIT, MUMBAI CITY CONCERNED; (5) THE DR, ITAT, MUMBAI; (6) GUARD FILE . TRUE COPY BY ORDER PRADEEP J. CHOWDHURY SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI