Ranbir Singh, Jajpur V. DCIT, Cuttack

ITA 359/CTK/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6340 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-05-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 21-06-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S C MOHANTY
• Assessee Lawyers: S K JENA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment
• Section: 69

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK . . , . . , BEFORE SHRI P.K.BANSAL , AM & SHRI D.T.GARASIA , JM ./ ITA NO. 359 / C TK /20 1 3 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200 8 - 0 9 ) RANVIR SINGH, PROP.M/S HARIYANA TRADERS, JAJPUR ROAD, DISTT JAJPUR, ODISHA VS. DCIT , CIR. - 1(1), CUTTACK ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : A GVPS 3219 C ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPO NDENT ) /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.K.JENA /REVENUE BY : SHRI S.C.MOHANTY / DATE OF HEARING : 2 4 TH APRIL , 201 4 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : / /2014 / O R D E R PER BENCH : THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DATED 26 - 3 - 2013 BY TAKING THE EFFECTIVE FOLLOWING GROUND : - A . FOR THAT THE LD. AO IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN TREATING RS.10,50,000/ - AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT, PARTICULAR LY WHEN THE APPELLANT BROUGHT THIS FACT TO THE NOTICE OF THE LD.AO VOLUNTARILY. FURTHER THE LD.CIT(A) FAILED TO ADJUDICATE THIS ISSUE, THEREFORE THE INVOCATION OF SECTION 69 OF THE ACT BY THE AUTHORITY BELOW IS IMPROPER. 2 . BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE RELATES TO THIS GROUND ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IN PREVIOUS YEAR OBTAINED LOAN OF RS. 9,50,000/ - , SUM OF RS.20 LAKHS DURING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR VIDE CHEQUE NO. 528718, DATED 10 - 4 - 2007. WHEN ASKED BY THE AO IN RESPECT OF THE 2 ITA NO. 359 /201 3 BALANCE PAYMENT OF RS. 10,50,000/ - , THE A SSESSEE STATED THAT INADVERTENT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS AS REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET. THE AO, THEREFORE, MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 10,50,000/ - . THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), WHO CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE AO. 3 . WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SAME. IN OUR OPINION, NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) . AS THE ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT THE THERE WAS INADVERTENTLY MISTAKE AND THE AMOUNT WAS NOT SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET, NO SUCH COGENT MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD. WE ACCORDINGLY, CONFIRM THE ADDITION. 4 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 01/05 / 201 4 . 01/05 /2014 SD/ - SD/ - ( . . ) ( D.T.GARASIA ) ( . . ) ( P.K.BANSAL ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CUTTACK ; DATED 01/05 /2014 . . /PKM , . / PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) , CUTTACK 4. / CIT , BHUBANESWAR 5. , , / DR, ITAT, CUTTACK 6. / GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY// 3 ITA NO. 359 /201 3 / BY ORDER, / ( ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, CUTTACK