ITO 25(1)(4), MUMBAI V. NAYANA P PANCHAL, MUMBAI

ITA 2848/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0718 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 20-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 12-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A RAMCHANDRAN SR ARDR
• Section: 69; 263; 63; 144

Judgement Text

, , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES B, MUMBAI , , , BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.2848/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006-07 INCOME TAX OFFICER-25(1)(4), ROOM NO.308, 3 RD FLOOR, BLDG. C-10, PRATYAKSHAKAR BHAVAN, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA(E), MUMBAI-400051 / VS. MS. NAYANA P PANCHAL, R. NO.16, SINDHI CHAWAL, DAULAT NAGAR, ROAD NO.-6, BORIVALI(E), MUMBAI-400051 ( / REVENUE) ( !'# $ /ASSESSEE) P.A. NO. AICPP0500E / REVENUE BY SHRI A.RAMCHANDRAN. SR.AR-DR !'# $ / ASSESSEE BY SHRI ANIL THAKRAR ' $ ( / DATE OF HEARING 20/07/2015 ' $ ( / DATE OF ORDER: 21/07/2015 / O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DAT ED 01/01/2013, OF THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, M UMBAI. ITA NO.2848/MUM/2013 , MS. NAYANA P. PANCHAL 2 2. THE FIRST GROUND RAISED PERTAINS TO DELETING T HE ADDITION OF RS.18,01,900/-. THE CRUX OF ARGUMENT ADVANCED B Y SRI A. RAMACHANDRAN, LD. DR, IS IDENTICAL TO THE GROUND RA ISED BY SUBMITTING THAT THE ADDITION WAS WRONGLY DELETED BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. OUR ATTENTION WAS INVIT ED TO THE RELEVANT FINDING CONTAINED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. ON THE OTHER HAND, SHRI ANIL THAKRAR, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, DEFENDED THE CONCLUSION ARRIVED AT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 2.1. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE FACTS , IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL ENGAGED IN T HE BUSINESS OF SELLING TEXTILES ITEMS ON RETAIL BASIS. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 144 REA D WITH SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTE R THE ACT) ON 15/12/2011, PURSUANT TO THE DIRECTION OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER INVOKING REVISIONAL JURISDICTION U/S 2 63 OF THE ACT, THUS , THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE DE POSITS OF RS.18,01,900/- AND RS.25,06,500/- MADE IN MANDAVI COOPERATIVE BANK. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RESPOND TO THE NOTICES ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO DID NOT FILE ANY SOURCE OF SUCH CASH DEPOSITS. HOWEVER, ON APPEAL, BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), IT WAS CL AIMED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE CASH WAS DEPOSITED BY THE ASS ESSEE BUT THE ADDITION HAS BEEN WRONGLY MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 69 OF THE ACT. WE NOTE THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FOUND THAT THE ADDITION WAS WR ONGLY WORKED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ACTUAL CASH DEPOSIT WAS RS.38,22,900/-. THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS WERE ITA NO.2848/MUM/2013 , MS. NAYANA P. PANCHAL 3 FURNISHED BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) BY THE ASSESSEE AND REMAND REPORT WAS SOU GHT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH WAS CONSIDERED BY HIM. THE TRADING, PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR E NDING 31 ST MARCH, 2006 WAS DULY CONSIDERED. WE FIND THAT THE A SSESSEE DID NOT MADE TRUE DISCLOSURE OF THE TURNOVER AT THE FILING OF HER RETURN AND AS NOTED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ALSO, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE AMOUNT OF RS.4,15,014/-. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AS WEL L AS BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IS THAT THE CASH WAS GENERATED OUT OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE IN TRADING OF TEXTILE GARM ENTS. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE NET RATE PROFIT MAY BE CONSIDERED AT 5% OF THE TURNOVER, HOWEVER, IN THE R EMAND REPORT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUGGESTED THAT THE NE T PROFIT SHOULD BE TAKEN BETWEEN 8 TO 10% OF THE TURNOVER. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF FACTS, THE LD. COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ADOPTED THE NET PROFIT AT 8% O F RS.37,32,917/- AND SINCE, THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY DECLARED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 97,798/-, THE ADDITION TO THE EXT ENT OF RS.4,15,014/- WAS UPHELD, THUS, EVEN, AS PER 44AF, THE ADDITION IS NORMALLY MADE TO THE TUNE OF 8%. IT IS MADE CLEAR THAT, WE ARE NOT SUGGESTING THAT THE BENEFIT OF SEC TION 44AF IS AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. TO PUT AN END, UNDER THE FACTS, AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE CO NCLUSION OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), FOR A DOPTING THE NET PROFIT AT 8%, THUS, THE STAND OF THE LD. CO MMISSIONER ITA NO.2848/MUM/2013 , MS. NAYANA P. PANCHAL 4 OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS AFFIRMED. OUR CONCLUSIO N WILL COVER ALL THE GROUNDS AS THE SAME ARE INTERLINKED. FINALLY, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE CONCLUSION OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), CONSEQUENTLY, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF BOTH SIDES, AT TH E CONCLUSION OF HEARING ON 20/07/2015. SD/- SD/- ( SANJAY ARORA ) (JOGINDER SINGH) '# / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $# / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; ) DATED : 21/07/2015 F{X~{T? P.S/. . . %$&'()(*& / 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. ' 7 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, /3+$ .$ //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI