Shri Mungsmuri Dhruva , Bangalore V. The Income Tax Officer Ward-5(3)(5), Bangalore

ITA 338/BANG/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5434 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 05-02-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PADMAMEENAKSHI J
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC-C BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 338 / BANG/201 8 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 201 3 - 14 SHRI MUNGAMURI DHRUVA, NO. 734, 4 TH MAIN, GEETANJALI LAYOUT, HAL 3 RD STAGE, NEW TIPPASANDRA, BANGALORE 560 075. PAN: AAQPD5739H VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5 (3) (5), BANGALORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SMT. SHEETAL BORKAR, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SMT. PADMA MEENAKSHI, JCIT(DR) DATE OF HEARING : 15. 0 3 .2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15. 0 3 .201 8 O R D E R PER SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS DIREC TED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-5, BANGALORE DATED 30.10.2017 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER. 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (A) OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPT ED THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE APPELLANT AND REFRAINED FROM UPHOLDING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS.20,80,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRE CIATED THAT THE SOURCE FOR DEPOSIT WAS CASH WITHDRAWALS OF THE APPE LLANT FROM HIS OWN BANK ACCOUNT. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRE CIATED THAT THE WITHDRAWAL AMOUNTS WERE HELD SHORT WHILE BY THE APP ELLANT FOR A PURPOSE WHICH DID NOT MATERIALIZE AND CONSEQUENTLY STOOD RE- DEPOSITED INTO THE BANK ACCOUNT. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRE CIATED THAT THERE ITA NO.338/BANG/2018 PAGE 2 OF 3 WAS NO EVIDENCE AVAILABLE WITH THE REVENUE TO PROVE THAT THE WITHDRAWN MONEY HAD BEEN UTILIZED OTHERWISE AND WAS NOT AVAILABLE FOR RE-DEPOSIT AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE EXPLANA TION OFFERED BY THE APPELLANT OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED AND THE LEARN ED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE REFRAINED FROM UPHOLDING THE IMPUGNED ADDIT ION. 5. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRE CIATED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD PROVIDED ADEQUATE EVIDENCE IN THIS RE GARD AND ACCORDINGLY UPHOLDING OF THE IMPUGNED ADDITION ON M ERE SURMISE WAS UNCALLED FOR AND THUS THE SAME IS LIABLE TO BE DELE TED. 6. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE IMPUGNED ADDITION AS CONF IRMED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (A) IS EXCESSIVE, ARBITRARY AN D UNREASONABLE AND LIABLE TO BE DELETED IN TOTO. 7. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE INTEREST U/S.234B OF THE ACT. 8. FOR THESE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE APPEAL MAY BE ALLOWED. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. AR OF ASSESSEE THAT THE FINDING OF CIT (A) IN PARA NO. 5 OF HIS ORDER IS THIS THAT DURING THE APPELLATE PROC EEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO RECONCILE THE DEPOSITS VIS--VIS THE WITHD RAWALS IN THE OTHER BANK ACCOUNTS AS PER THE BANK STATEMENTS BUT THE LD. AR OF ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE BANK STATEMENT COPIES AND HAS MADE AN ATTEMPT TO RE CONCILE BUT COULD NOT DO IT. SHE DRAWN MY ATTENTION TO PAGE 10 OF THE PAPER BOOK AS PER WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN COMPLETE DATE WISE DETAILS OF CA SH WITHDRAWALS DURING 09.06.2012 TO 10.10.2012 OF RS. 34.60 LAKHS AND THE DATE WISE CASH DEPOSIT DURING 27.06.2012 AND 03.11.2012 OF RS. 25.47 LAKHS INCLUDING THE AMOUNT IN DISPUTE OF RS. 20.80 LAKHS. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN T HE LIGHT OF THIS DOCUMENT WHICH WAS MADE AVAILABLE BEFORE THE CIT(A) ALSO, IT IS NOT PROPER ON THE PART OF CIT(A) TO SAY THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT RECONCILE THE AMOUNT OF DEPOSIT TO THE AMOUNT OF WITHDRAWALS. HE SUBMITTED THAT UNDER THESE FACTS, THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) FOR FRES H DECISION AFTER CONSIDERING THIS DOCUMENT. THE LD. DR OF REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 4. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. I FIND THAT ONLY DISPUTE IS REGARDING EXPLANATION OF ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF SOURCE OF CAS H DEPOSIT OF RS. 20.80 ITA NO.338/BANG/2018 PAGE 3 OF 3 LAKHS ON 03.11.2012 IN ICICI BANK. THE FINDING OF CIT(A) IS THIS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE AN ATTEMPT TO RECONCILE THE CASH WITHDRAWALS AND CASH DEPOSIT BUT COULD NOT DO IT. BUT THERE IS NO COMME NT ABOUT THIS DOCUMENT WHICH IS AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO. 10 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH IS A CERTIFICATE OF CA AND AS PER THE CERTIFICATE GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PA PER BOOK, THIS DOCUMENT WAS ALSO MADE AVAILABLE BEFORE THE AO AND CIT(A) BOTH. HENCE I FEEL IT PROPER TO RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT (A) FOR FRESH DECISION AFTER EXAMINING THIS DOCUMENT AND EVEN IF HE IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THIS, HE SHOULD GIVE REASONING FOR REJECTING THIS DOCUMENT AS RECONCILIATION OF CA SH WITHDRAWALS AND CASH DEPOSITS. THE CIT(A) SHOULD PASS NECESSARY ORDER A S PER LAW IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE DISCUSSION AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNI TY OF BEING HEARD TO BOTH SIDES. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENT IONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. SD/- (ARUN KUMAR GARODIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 15 TH MARCH, 2018. /MS/ COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 4. CIT(A) 2. RESPONDENT 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE 3. CIT 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.