ITO 16(3)(1), MUMBAI V. VINOD D MAHAJAN, MUMBAI

ITA 3371/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2707 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 09-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Peak credit

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL F BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.BASKARAN, AM AND PAWAN SINGH, JM ./ I.T.A. NO . 3371 / MUM/20 1 4 ( / ASSESSMENT YEA R : 200 9 - 10 ) INCOME TAX OFFIC ER 16(3) (1), MATRU MANDIR, MUMBAI . / VS. SHRI VINOD D MAHAJAN, 106, 1 ST FLOOR, SONI CHAMBERS, 10/12, AVANTIKABAI GOKHALE ST R EET, OPERA HOUSE, MUMBAI - 400004 ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) ./ ./PAN. : AAEPM2030Q / APPELLANT BY SHRI PRAMOD NIKALJE / RESPONDENT BY SHRI JAYANT BHATT / DATE OF HEARING : 4 .11 . 201 5 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 4 .1 1. 201 5 / O R D E R P ER B R BASKARAN, AM: THE REVENUE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL CHALLENGING THE ORDER DATED 28 - 02 - 2014 PASSED BY LD CIT(A) - 27, MUMBAI FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10, WHEREIN HE HAS PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY RE DUCING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO FROM RS.31,17,354/ - TO RS.8,09,664/ - . 2. WE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND IS DEALING IN AUTOMOBILE SPARE PARTS IN THE NAME AND STYLE M/S PREMIER MOTORS. FROM THE AI R INFORMATION, THE AO NOTICED THE ITA NO. 3371 / MUM/20 1 4 2 ASSESSEE HAD MADE CASH DEPOSITS IN ICICI BANK TO THE TUNE OF RS.31,17,354/ - . THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME REPRESENTS BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS WHICH WERE NOT ACCOUNTED IN THE BOOKS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBST ANTIATE THE SAID CLAIM, THE AO ASSESSED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS.31,17,354/ - AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD CIT(A), HOWEVER, COMPUTED PEAK CREDIT OF THE DEPOSITS AND ACCORDINGLY SUSTAINED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.8,09,664/ - . AGGRIEVED THE REVEN UE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. THE LD D.R SUBMITTED THAT THE LD CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING PEAK CREDIT BALANCE, WHEN THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT OFFER PROPER EXPLANATION WITH REGARD TO THE ENTIRE DEPOSITS. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD A.R S UBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE DEPOSITS REPRESENTS HIS BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS AND ACCORDINGLY PRAYED BEFORE LD CIT(A) FOR ADOPTION OF NET PROFIT @ 8%. HOWEVER, THE LD CIT(A) PROCEEDED TO SUSTAIN THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF PEAK CREDIT OF THE DEPOSITS, WHICH WORK OUT TO MORE THAN 8%. 4. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY LD CIT(A) DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS DEALING IN AUTOMOBILE SPARE PARTS AND THERE IS SOM E MERIT IN THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE DEPOSITS MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT REPRESENTS BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS. THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION SUSTAINED BY THE LD CIT(A) WORKS OUT TO MORE THAN THE NORMAL RATE OF PROFIT FROM BUSINESS. UNDE R THESE SET OF FACTS, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A). ITA NO. 3371 / MUM/20 1 4 3 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED ACCORDINGLY ON 4TH NOVEMBER , 2 015. 4TH NOV , 2 015 SD SD ( PAWAN SINGH ) ( B.R. BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI: 4TH NOV , 2 015. . . ./ SRL , SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - CONCERNED 4. / CIT CONCERNED 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI CONCERNED 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , /ITAT, MUMBAI