KANJI BHACHU CHANDAT, MUMBAI V. ITO 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3352/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9935 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-07-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 24-05-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 09-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH KUMAR YADAV
• Assessee Lawyers: RATURAJ H GURJAR
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE S/ SHRI B.R. BASKARAN (AM) & RAMLAL NEGI (JM) I.T.A. NO. 3352 /MUM/20 14 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 09 - 10 ) MR. KANJI BHACHU CHANDAT 635, A - 7, LKALAMANDIR CHS P.D. HINDUJA MARG NEAR HANUMAN TEMPLE KHAR WEST, MUMBAI - 400 052. VS. ITO 19(1)(1) 319, 3 RD FLOOR PIRAMAL CHAMBERS JIJEEBHOY LANE LALBAUG, MUMAI - 12 . ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) PAN NO . AJOPC7478B ASSESSEE BY SHRI RATURAJ H. GURJAR DEPARTMENT BY S HRI RAJESH KUMAR YADAV DATE OF HEARING 11 . 5 . 201 7 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 14 . 7 . 201 7 O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN (AM) : - THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 4.3.2014 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) - 30, MUMBAI AND IT RELATES TO A.Y. 2009 - 10. THE ASSESSEE IS A GGRIEVED BY THE DECISION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF ` 15.08 LAKHS RELATING TO DEPOSITS MADE IN THE SAVING BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. WE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR TH E YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ON 8.6.2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF ` 1,12,930/ - . THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE DEPOSITS AGGREGATING TO ` 15.07 LAKHS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDER ATION IN THE BANK ACCOUNT MAINT A I NED WITH ICICI BAN K. WHEN QUESTIONED ABOUT THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND BALANCE SHEET AND CLAIMED THAT THE DEPOSITS MADE TO BE LABOUR CHARGES INCOME RECEIVED IN THE READYMADE GARMENT INDUSTRY. SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY DOCUMENT T O SUPPORT THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT FURNISHED BY HIM, MR. KANJI BHACHU CHANDAT 2 THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASSESSED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF DEPOSITS OF ` 15.07 LA KHS AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. T HE LEARNED CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE SAME AND HENCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. L EARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED CONFIRMATION LETTERS OBTAINED FROM THE PARTIES FROM WHOM LABOUR CHARGES WERE RECEIVED AND ALSO CONFIRMATION LETTER RECEIVED FROM THE PARTIES TO WHOM LABOUR CHARGES WERE PAID . HOWEVER , BOTH TAX AUTHORITIE S HAVE NOT CONSIDERED THE SAME AND THEY HAVE MADE THE ADDITIONS WITHOUT EXAMINING THOSE DOCUMENTS. LEARNED AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE IDENTICAL ADDITION IN A.Y. 2010 - 11 AND WHEN THE MATTER REACHED THE TRIBUNAL, ITAT HAS RESTOR ED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR EXAMINING THE ISSUE AFRESH. HE SUBMITTED THAT , IN THE SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ESTIMATED THE INCOME AT 8% OF THE CASH DEPOSITS ACCEPTING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE DEPOSITS REPRESENT SALES PROCEEDS OF TEXTILE BUSINESS. ACCORDINGLY, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL MAY BE PLEASED TO TAKE AN IDENTICAL VIEW IN THIS YEAR ALSO. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLA IMED TO HAVE CHANGED HIS BUSINESS ACTIVITY DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN A.Y. 2010 - 11, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT HE HAS BEEN CARRYING ON TEXTILE BUSINESS, WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE , DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION , HAS CLAIMED THAT HE HAS BEEN UNDER TAKING JOB WORK IN GAR MENT INDUSTRY. ACCORDINGLY, LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN A.Y. 2010 - 11 CANNOT BE APPLIED TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. 5. HAVING HEARD TH E RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS ISSUE NEEDS TO BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER , SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT EXAMINED AND COMMENTED UPON THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TO SUPPORT HIS CLAIM THAT HE HAS UNDERTAKEN JOB WORK IN THE READYMADE GARMENT INDUSTRY. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER MR. KANJI BHACHU CHANDAT 3 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND RESTORE THE SAME TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE DIRECTION TO EXAMINE THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS F URNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND TAKE APPROPRIATE DECISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW, AFTER AFFORDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER HAS BE EN PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 14 . 7 .201 7. SD/ - SD/ - (RAMLAL NEGI ) (B.R.BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 14 / 7 / 20 1 7 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) PS ITAT, MUMBAI