Shri Tarun Sachdev, Jamshedpur V. ITO WARD-1(1), Jamshedpur

ITA 315/RAN/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7775 (ITAT-RANCHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-05-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 21-11-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K MOHANTY
• Assessee Lawyers: S K PODDARDEVESH PODDAR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.315 /RAN/201 6 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012 - 2013 SRI TARUN SACHDEV, OM TOWER, SB SHOP AREA, BISTUPUR, JAMSHEDPUR VS. ITO, WARD 1(1), JAMSHEDPUR PAN/GIR NO. AIOPS 7739 L (APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY: SHRI S .K.PODDAR/DEVESH PODDAR, ADV REVENUE BY : SHRI A.K.MOHANTY, JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 22 /05 / 201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23 /05/ 2018 O R D E R PER N.S.SAINI, AM THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A), JAMSHEDPUR , DATED 16.9.2016 , F OR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 2013. 2. GROUND NO.1 OF APPEAL READS AS UNDER: FOR THAT THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING A DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2,63,393/ - OUT OF INTEREST EXPENSES CLAIMED. THE CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO FAILED TO CONSIDER THAT LOAN WAS NOT UTI LISED FOR PERSONAL PURPOSES, AS SUCH, DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO TO THE EXTENT OF 38% OF THE EXPENSES CLAIMED IS UNJUSTIFIED, ILLEGAL AND ARBITRARY. 2 ITA NO.315/RAN/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012 - 2013 3. AS THIS GROUND WAS NOT PRESSED BEFORE THE CIT(A), THEREFORE, THERE CAN BE NO GRIEVANCE CAUSED TO THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). HENCE, T HESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. 4. GROUND NOS.2 & 3 OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER: 3. FOR THAT THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.26,30,527/ - ON THE GROUND THAT THE DEPOSITS MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT REMAINS UNEXPLAINED. ALL THE DEPO SITS WERE EXPLAINED IN DETAIL BEFORE THE AO AS WELL AS BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE ADDITION MADE WHILE REJECTING THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT IN A SUMMARY MANNER IS UNJUSTIFIED, ILLEGAL AND INCORRECT. 4. FOR THAT THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED DETAILS OF THE BANK ACCOUNT, CASH FLOW SUMMARY AND CONFIRMATION FROM THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGARDING WITHDRAWAL OF FUNDS FROM THEM. THE DETAIL OF THE GOLD LOAN AND DEPOSIT MADE THEREOF IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WAS ALSO EXPLAINED. THERE WAS NO DEPOSIT WHICH WAS NOT EXPLAINED. AS SUCH, THE ADDITION MADE IS UNJUSTIFIED, ILLEGAL AND INCORRECT. 5. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FOLLOWING BANK ACCOUNTS: 1. THE FEDERAL BANK A/C. NO.11970100088807 2. AXIS BANK A.C NO.00501010067 7011 3. INDUSIND BANK A/C NO.0068 - H00037 - 001 4. INDUSIND BANK A/C NO.0068 - H01747 - 050 6. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.26,30,527/ - I N THE ABOVE BANK ACCOUNTS. THE ASSESSEE WAS 3 ITA NO.315/RAN/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012 - 2013 A SKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF T H E SAME. THE ASSESSEE FILED CASH FLOW STATEMENT AND SUBMITTED THAT THE CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WAS OUT OF WITHDRAWALS OF OWN FUNDS FROM THE BANK. SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE RELEVANT DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTI ON, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.26,30,527/ - AS UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS IN THE BANK AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 8. BEFORE US, THE ONLY ARGUMENT OF LD A .R. OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALL THE RELEVANT DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE CASH DEP OSITS IN THE BANK AMOUNTING TO R S.26,30,527/ - AND, THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY SHOULD BE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE T O PROD UCE THE RELEVANT DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE CIT(A) IN SUPPORT OF THE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK. 9. LD D.R. DID NOT HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO THE SUBMISSION OF LD A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE. 10. IN THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE SET AS IDE THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND REMAND THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER CONSIDERING THE RELEVANT DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS TO BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF THE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS . NEEDLESS TO MENTION THAT HE SHALL ALLOW REASONABLE 4 ITA NO.315/RAN/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012 - 2013 OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE AF RESH. THUS, THIS GROUND OF APPE AL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 11 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23 /05 /201 8 SD/ - SD/ - (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) (N.S SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER A CCOUNTANT MEMBER RANCHI; DATED 23 /05 /201 8 B.K.PARIDA, SPS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, SR.PS, ITAT, CAMP AT RANCHI 1. THE APPELLANT : SRI TARUN SACHDEV, OM TOWER, SB SHOP AREA, BISTUPUR, JAMSHEDPUR 2. THE RESPONDENT: ITO, WARD 1(1), JAMSHEDPUR 3. THE CIT(A), JAMSHEDPUR 4. PR. CIT , JAMSHEDPUR 5. DR, ITAT, RANCHI 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//