M/s. Cama Hotels Limited, Ahmedabad V. The Dy.CIT.,(OSD)-I, Ahmedabad

ITA 3132/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1162 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 11 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 03-11-2015
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 09-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NARENDRA SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: M J SHAH
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 3132/AHD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2001-02 CAMA HOTELS LTD, KHANPUR, AHMEDABAD PAN : AABCC 5437 G VS DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (OSD)-I, AHMEDABAD / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE(S) BY : SHRI M.J. SHAH, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI NARENDRA SINGH, SR. DR. / DATE OF HEARING : 03/11/2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 20/11/2015 / O R D E R PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-6, AHMEDABAD D ATED 04.10.2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02. 2. THE SOLITARY GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS UNDER:- THAT THE C.T.T (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE AD DITION OF RS.200000 U/S 68 OF THE I.T. ACT IN RESPECT OF THE TWO DEPOSITS OF RS.100000 EACH ACCEPTED FROM ROHIT MARU AND UTPAL MARU THOUGH THE SAME WERE RECEIVED BY THE ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES AND THE SAME WERE SUPPORTED B Y THE CONFIRMATIONS AND P.A. NUMBERS AND THE SAME WERE ALSO REPAID LATER ON BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES AND THE INTEREST PAID TO THE DEPOSITORS WAS ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION AND THE HONOURABLE ITAT HAD IN THE FIRST ROUND OF AP PEAL HELD THAT THE APPELLANT HAD PRIMA FACIE DISCHARGED ITS ONUS TO PR OVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE DEPOSIT. 3. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THIS IS THE SECOND ROUND OF LITIGATION. IN THE EARLIER ROUND, THE ASSESSEE HAD CHALLENGED THE ADDITION OF RS.2,00,000/- MADE U/S 68 OF THE ACT WHILE THE DISALLOWANCE HAS B EEN CONFIRMED BY THE ITA NO. 3132/AHD/2011 CAMA HOTELS LTD VS. DCIT AY : 2001-02 2 CIT(A). IN THE EARLIER ROUND, THIS TRIBUNAL VIDE I TS ORDER DATED 27.02.2009 IN ITA NO.3865/AHD/2004 HAD RESTORED THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DECISION AFRESH. THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER IN PURSUANCE OF THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL YET AGAIN CONFIRMED THE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH THE CURREN T ADDRESS OF THE DEPOSITORS. THE ADDITION SO MADE WAS CONFIRMED BY T HE LD. CIT(A). NOW THE ASSESSEE IS FURTHER IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADDITION AND CONFIRMIN G THE SAME. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ACTION OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IS CONTRARY TO THE SETTLED LAW. LD. COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESS EE-COMPANY HAD ACCEPTED THE DEPOSITS, APART FROM OTHERS, FROM ONE MR. ROHIT MARU AND MR. UTPAL MARU OF RS.1,00,000/- EACH AS FIXED DEPOSIT. HE SUBMITTED THAT ON MATURITY OF THE FIXED DEPOSIT THE AMOUNT WAS REPAID TO THE CONCERNED PARTIES. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE DEPOSITS WE RE ACCEPTED BY WAY OF ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE NO. 390825 DATED 26.11.2000 OF RS. 1,00,000/- DRAWN ON CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, MITHAKHALI BRNACH, AHMEDA BAD FROM MR. ROHIT MARU AND A SIMILAR AMOUNT OF CHEUQE NO.290824 DATED 26.11.2000 DRAWN ON CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, MITHAKHALI BRANCH, AHMEDABAD FROM MR. UTPAL MARU. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMB ERS (PAN) OF BOTH THE PARTIES WERE GIVEN. HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO P AGE NO. 32 OF THE PAPER- BOOK IN THIS REGARD, WHEREIN THE PAN OF SHRI ROHIT I. MARU AND UTPAL R. MARU IS GIVEN AND BOTH OF THEM ARE STATED TO BE AS SESSED AT ITO 23(1), MUMBAI AND ITO 46(1), NEW DELHI RESPECTIVELY. THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT UNDER THESE FACTS THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT NOT TO HAVE MADE ADDITION WITHOUT MAKING ENQUIRY FROM THE CONCERNED PARTIES. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, THE LD. COUNSEL PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE ITA NO. 3132/AHD/2011 CAMA HOTELS LTD VS. DCIT AY : 2001-02 3 HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. A YACHI CHANDRASHEKHAR NARSANGJI, REPORTED IN [2014] 42 TAXMANN.COM 251 (G UJ.). 5. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CALLED FOR CERTAIN DETAILS IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE G ENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITORS ; BUT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH THE SAME. THEREFORE, THE AUTHORITIES BE LOW WERE JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THE FACT THAT THE TRANSACTIONS HAVE BEEN ROUTED THROUGH THE BANKING CHANNEL. THE ASSES SEE HAS FURNISHED PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBERS (PAN) OF THE CONCERNED PA RTIES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION GI VEN BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH THE CURRENT ADDRESS OF THE CONCERNED DEPOSITORS AND ALSO THE NOTICES COULD NOT BE SERVED AS PER THE INSPECTORS REPORT. IT WAS STATED THAT THE CONCERN ED PARTIES DID NOT RESIDE ON THE GIVEN ADDRESS FOR THE LAST 4-5 YEARS. WE F IND THAT AT PAGE NO.30 OF THE PAPER-BOOK THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE LEDGE R ACCOUNT OF THE DEPOSITORS. AS PER THIS, THE DEPOSITORS DEPOSITS WERE ACCEPTED ON 27.11.2000. AS PER THE APPLICATION FORM FOR FIXED DEPOSIT, WHICH IS PLACED ON RECORD AT PAGE NO.28 OF THE PAPER-BOOK, THE PERIOD OF DEPOSIT WAS FOR 12 MONTHS, STARTING FROM 26.11.2000 AND THE SAME WAS R EQUIRED TO BE REPAID BEFORE NOVEMBER 2001. AS PER INSPECTORS REPORT, T HE CONCERNED DEPOSITORS WERE NOT RESIDING AT THE GIVEN ADDRESS FOR 4-5 YEAR S FROM THE DATE OF MAKING INQUIRY, I.E., IN THE YEAR 2010. THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED THE PAN OF THE CONCERNED DEP OSITORS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE MADE INQUIRY FROM THE JURISDI CTIONAL ASSESSING ITA NO. 3132/AHD/2011 CAMA HOTELS LTD VS. DCIT AY : 2001-02 4 OFFICERS TO FIND OUT THE CURRENT ADDRESS OF THE DEP OSITORS. THEREFORE, AFTER CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND MORE PART ICULARLY UNDER THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUS TIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITION. HENCE, WE HEREBY DIRECT THE ASSESSING OF FICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 20 TH NOVEMBER, 2015 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (KUL BHARAT) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 20/11/2015 *BIJU T. !'#$%&%'# / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ! / CONCERNED CIT 4. ! ( ) / THE CIT(A) 5. $%&'' , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. &,-. / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD