Satish U Chokkadi, Bangalore V. ITO, Bangalore

ITA 30/BANG/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9421 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 14-07-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 13-01-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: DINESH P

Judgement Text

ITA.30/BANG/2016 PAGE - 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH 'A', BANGALORE SHRI. ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A NO.30/BANG/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) SHRI. SATISH U. CHOKKADI, NO.1045, JANANI, 20 TH MAIN, 4 TH CROSS, NISARGA LAYOUT, JIGANI HOBLI, BANNERGHATTA POST, BENGALURU 560 083 .. APPELLANT PAN : AESP2975E V. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD -10(1), BENGALURU .. RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI. DINESH P. ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SHRI. BIPIN C. N. JCIT HEARD ON : 14.07.2016 PRONOUNCED ON : 26.08.2016 O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : IN THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS DIRE CTED AGAINST AN ORDER DT.27.11.2015 OF CIT (A)-IV, BENGALURU, IT HAS ALTO GETHER RAISED NINE GROUNDS WHICH ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER : ITA.30/BANG/2016 PAGE - 2 ITA.30/BANG/2016 PAGE - 3 02. FACTS APROPOS ARE THAT ASSESSEE A CONTRACTOR HA D FILED HIS RETURN FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR DECLARING INCOME OF RS .2,11,040/-. AO WAS IN POSSESSION OF INFORMATION THAT ASSESSEE HAD CASH DEPOSITS IN THE FOLLOWING BANKS : ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF DEPO SITS. EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT DEPOSITS WERE MADE FROM THE AMOUN TS RECEIVED BY ONE SHRI. SHIVARAM, GPA HOLDER OF ONE SHRI. SHYAMAPRASA D. HOWEVER AO DID NOT BELIEVE THIS CONTENTION. ACCORDING TO HIM ASSE SSEE WAS CHANGING ITS EXPLANATION OFTEN. FIRST ASSESSEE HAD STATED THAT THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED FROM SHRI.SHIVARAM WHEREAS LATER HE STATED THAT DEP OSITS WERE DRAWINGS MADE FROM ANOTHER BANK. HE HELD THAT THE SOURCE OF THE DEPOSITS WERE NOT EXPLAINED. AN ADDITION OF RS.30,63,000/- WAS MADE. 03. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE MOVED IN APPEAL BEFORE THE C IT (A). CIT (A) SOUGHT A REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO. IN THE SAID RE MAND REPORT, AO DISPELLED ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT AMOUNTS WERE R ECEIVED FROM DR. SHIVARAM. ACCORDING TO HIM THIS WAS ONLY A STORY F LOATED BY THE ASSESSEE ITA.30/BANG/2016 PAGE - 4 AND THE AMOUNTS WERE NOT MATCHING WITH THE DEPOSITS MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. FURTHER ACCORDING TO HIM CONTENTION OF TH E ASSESSEE THAT PART OF THE AMOUNT WAS OUT OF ADVANCE RECEIVED FOR SALE OF A SITE NO.2860 AT SY NO.88, NANDANAVANA LAYOUT, BENGALURU, ALSO COULD NO T BE ACCEPTED SINCE THERE WAS A LONG DELAY BETWEEN THE DATE OF ALLEGED RECEIPT OF ADVANCE AND DEPOSITS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. WHEN THIS WAS PU T TO THE ASSESSEE EXPLANATION OF ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOU NT WERE MAINTAINED AND THE CREDITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WERE RECORDED IN SU CH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. CIT (A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSE SSEE AND REMAND REPORT OF THE AO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT ASSESSEE COULD NO T PROVE RECEIPT OF MONEY FROM SHRI. SHYAMAPRASAD THROUGH DR. SHIVARAM NOR COULD IT SHOW ANY SOURCE FOR THE OTHER CASH DEPOSITS. HE UPHELD THE ORDER OF AO. 04. NOW BEFORE US LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HA D GIVEN DETAILED EXPLANATION BEFORE THE AO FOR EACH OF THE CREDITS I N THE BANK ACCOUNTS BUT THESE WERE NOT CONSIDERED BY THE AO. FOR THIS RELI ANCE WAS PLACED ON WAS A LETTER DT.10.10.2011 FILED BY ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO. AS PER THE LD. AR ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN CLEAR EXPLANATION REGARDING DEPO SITS MADE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IN PARA 8 OF THE SAID LETTER. FURTHER ACCORDING TO HIM ASSESSEE HAD ON 28.11.2011 FILED ANOTHER LETTER BEFORE THE A O (PAPER BOOK, PAGE.44) ITA.30/BANG/2016 PAGE - 5 WHERE ALSO HE HAD EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF VARIOUS D EPOSITS IN ICICI BANK ACCOUNT. AGAIN AS PER THE LD. AR ASSESSEE ON 30.11 .2011 VIDE LETTER PLACED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE 6, GAVE FURTHER EXPLANATION WITH REGARD TO AMOUNTS IN THE NATURE OF PERSONAL HAND LOANS RECEIVED DURING T HE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. AS PER THE LD. AR, ON 20.12.2011 ALSO ASSESS EE FILED A LETTER BEFORE THE AO WHICH GAVE DETAILS OF THE DEPOSITS IN THE BO OKS OF ACCOUNT. WITHOUT CONSIDERING ANY OF THE LETTERS, ADDITION WAS SUSTAI NED BY THE CIT (A). 05. PER CONTRA, LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF LOWE R AUTHORITIES. 06. I HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS AND HEARD THE RIVAL C ONTENTIONS. IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A CONTRACTOR. ASSESS EE HAS ALSO NOT DISPUTED THAT THERE WERE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AS MEN TIONED IN PARA TWO ABOVE. CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT EXPLANATION FILED BY LETTERS DT.10.11.11, 28.11.2011, 30.11.2011 AND 20.12.2011 WERE NOT PROPERLY CONSIDERED BY CIT (A). NO DOUBT AO AND CIT (A) HAD CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AMOUNTS DEPOSITED WERE OUT OF MONEY GIVEN BY SHYAMAPRASAD WHICH EXPLANATION FORMED A PA RT OF THE LETTER DT.10.10.2011. HOWEVER SUBSEQUENT LETTERS FILED BY ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO THE DEPOSITS WERE NOT CONSIDERED BY THE LOWER AUTHO RITIES. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE MATTER REQUIRES A FRESH LOOK BY ITA.30/BANG/2016 PAGE - 6 THE AO. ASSESSEE SHALL ADDUCE EVIDENCE TO SHOW THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS. ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE SET ASIDE AND THE QUESTION REGARDING THE SOURCE OF THE DEPOSITS IS RE MITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF AO FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 07. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 26 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2016. SD/- (ABRAHAM P GEORGE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MCN COPY TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) 5. DR 6. GF, ITAT, BANGALORE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR