ACIT 22(3), NAVI MUMBAI V. MILIND V DESHMUKH, NAVI MUMBAI

ITA 3530/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1363 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 7 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 25-05-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 18-05-2012
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

, , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, B MUMBAI , , BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI RAM IT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.3530/MUM/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ACIT-22(3), TOWER NO.6, 3 RD FLOOR, VASHI RLY. STATION COMPLEX VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI / VS. SHRI MILIND VASUDEO DESHMUKH, R-478, TTC INDUSTRIAL AREA, MIDC RABALE, NAVI MUMBAI ( / REVENUE) ( ! ' /ASSESSEE) PAN. NO.AEWPD2450D # $ % ' & / DATE OF HEARING : 28/12/2016 % ' & / DATE OF ORDER: 23/01/2017 / O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30/03/2012 OF THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORI TY, !' / REVENUE BY SHRI T.A. KHAN-SR. DR ! ' !' / ASSESSEE BY SHRI DEVENDRA JAIN ITA NO. 3530/MUM/2012 MILIND V. DESHMUKH 2 MUMBAI. THE FIRST GROUND RAISED PERTAINS TO REDUCIN G THE ADDITION MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS UNEXPLAINE D INVESTMENT IN MIDC PLOT FROM RS.97,51,641/- TO RS.2,28,511/-. 2. DURING HEARING OF THIS APPEAL, THE LD. DR, SHR I T. A. KHAN, DEFENDED THE ADDITION MADE IN THE ASSESSME NT ORDER BY ADVANCING ARGUMENTS WHICH IS IDENTICAL TO THE GROUND RAISED. ON THE OTHER HAND, SHRI DEVENDRA JA IN, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, DEFENDED THE CONCLUSION A RRIVED AT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 2.1. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE FACTS , IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED A PLOT IN MI DC FOR RS.97,51,641/-. AS PER THE REVENUE, THIS PLOT WAS NOT MENTIONED IN THE FIXED ASSETS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE DETAILS OF PURCHASES OF IMMOVABLE/MOVABLE PROPERTIES ALONG WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. AS PER THE REVENUE, NO SUCH DETAILS WERE FURNISHED, THEREFORE, THE AMOUNT OF RS.97,51,641/- WAS TREATED AS INVESTMENT MADE OUT OF UNDISCLOSED SOURC ES AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME. BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL), THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT TH E PLOT IN MIDC WAS PURCHASED FROM LOANS TAKEN FROM DOMVIBA LI NAGARI SAHKARI BANK, MIDC BRANCH, AIROLI, AN AGREEM ENT WAS ENTERED INTO ON 12/10/2006 BY PAYING LEASE PREM IUM PAID TO MIDC. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THE COPY OF THE ACCOUNT, WHICH APPEARS IN THE AFOREMENTIONED BANK P ROOF ITA NO. 3530/MUM/2012 MILIND V. DESHMUKH 3 OF PAYMENT OF TAX, WHEREIN, THE AMOUNT OF RS. 1,48, 107/- WAS PAID PRIOR TO TAKING OF ALLOTMENT OF PLOT. IT IS ALSO NOTICED THAT THE FIXED ASSETS/PLOT WAS PURCHASED FR OM MIDC FOR RS.89 LAKH AND STAMP DUTY OF RS.6,23,030/- WAS PAID FOR THE LEASE DATED 28/10/2006 TOGETHER WITH T HE STAMP OF RS.100 TOTALING RS.95,23,130/- AGAINST THE FIXED ASSETS REFLECTED AT RS.97,51,641/-. THE DIFFERENTIA L AMOUNT OF RS.2,28,511/-(RS.97,51,641 - 95,23,130). THUS, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX (APPEAL). HIS STAND IS AFFIRMED. 3. THE NEXT GROUND PERTAINS TO DELETING THE ADDITI ON OF RS.8,27,500/- ADDED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U /S 68 OF THE ACT. THE LD. DR DEFENDED THE ADDITION, WHERE AS, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DEFENDED THE CONCLUSIO N ARRIVED AT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. WE FIND THAT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE ACCEPT ED FRESH LOANS AMOUNTING TO RS.8,23,500/- FROM THREE PARTIES . THE ADDITION WAS MADE ON THE GROUND, THE ASSESSEE DID N OT FURNISHED EVIDENCE/CONFIRMATION FROM THE PARTIES. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE NECESSARY DETAILS/E VIDENCES BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) WITH RESPECT TO THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND T HESE DOCUMENTS WERE SENT TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER TO EXAMINE THE GENUINENESS OF THE CLAIM. NO ADVERSE COMMENT WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THERE IS A DIRECTION BY THE CIT(A) TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND GENUINENESS OF THE AMOUNT S. THE ITA NO. 3530/MUM/2012 MILIND V. DESHMUKH 4 ONUS LAID UPON THE ASSESSEE WAS DULY DISCHARGED BUT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT FURNISH THE ADVERSE C OMMENTS WITH RESPECT TO THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, THUS, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE CONCLUSION OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE U /S 68 OF THE ACT. FINALLY, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH SIDES AT TH E CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON 28/12/2016. SD/- SD/- ( RAMIT KOCHAR ) (JOGINDER SINGH) #'$ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER %'$ /JUDICIAL MEMBER # $ MUMBAI; ' DATED : 23/01/2017 F{X~{T? P.S / /. . . &%'()*)+' / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. )*+, / THE APPELLANT (RESPECTIVE ASSESSEE) 2. -.+, / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / / # 0' ( )* ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. / / # 0' / CIT(A)- , MUMBAI, 5. 23 -' , / )*& ) 4 , # $ / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 5 6$ / GUARD FILE. ' / BY ORDER, .2*' -' //TRUE COPY// /' (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , # $ / ITAT, MUMBAI