Sh. Parveen Kumar Kalra, Ludhiana V. ITO, Ludhiana

ITA 382/CHANDI/2015

• Counselvise Citation: 38221514 RSA 2015
• Duration Of Justice: 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-05-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 12-05-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 13-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: AMIT BHALLA; PANKAJ BHALLA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES SMC CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT ITA NO. 382/CHD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 SHRI PARVEEN KUMAR KALRA, VS. THE ITO, LUDHIANA WARD IV(2), LUDHIANA PAN NO. AJOPK6189P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : S/SHRI AMIT BHALLA & PANKAJ BHALLA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 12.05.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12.05.2015 ORDER PER H.L.KARWA, VP THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)- II, LUDHIANA DATED 20.02.2015 RELATING TO ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLO WING GROUNDS:- 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A)-II, LUDHIANA HAS WRONGLY PASSED ORDER U/S 250(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AGAINS T THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A)-II, LUDHIANA HAS WRONGLY MA DE AN ADDITION OF RS. 68,700/- CONTRAVENING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 251(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, THAT THE LD. CIT(A) -II, LUDHIANA HAS WRONGLY SUSTAINED ON ADDITION OF RS. 6 8,700/- WITHOUT APPRECIATING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AF OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961, AND WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE F ACT THAT SAME HAS ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED IN COMPUTATIO N AND RETURN OF INCOME. 2 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A SSESSEE IS RUNNING A KARYANA SHOP AND DOING RETAIL SALE AT DASHMESH NAGAR, LUDHI ANA. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED HIS RETURN ON 25.08.2008 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 1,04,230/-. THE SAID RETURN WAS PROC ESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT') ON 26.2.2 010 AT THE RETURNED INCOME. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UN DER CASS SCHEME OF SELECTION OF CASES IN SCRUTINY. THE STATUTORY NOTI CES WERE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE REQUISITE INFORMATION WAS CALLED FROM THE A SSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAD ALSO ONE BANK ACC OUNT WITH THE ICICI BANK, MODEL TOWN, LUDHIANA BEARING NO. 001701524141. ACC ORDING TO ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DISCLOSE THIS ACCOUNT . HOWEVER, DURING THE COURSE OF EXAMINATION, THE ASSESSEE DECLARED THAT HE HAS U NDERTAKEN TRANSACTIONS WITH ICICI BANK. THE ASSESSEE MADE DEPOSITS OF DIFFERENT AMOUNT DURING THE WHOLE YEAR IN THIS ACCOUNT. THESE TRANSACTIONS HAS BEEN C ARRIED OUT FOR THE WHOLE YEAR AND TOTAL TRANSACTIONS UNDERTAKEN ARE RS. 13,74,000 /-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES OF DEP OSITS MADE. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THESE DEPOSITS WERE MADE OUT OF HIS PAST SAVINGS AND PARTLY FROM SALE PROCEEDS OF HIS SHOP. THE ASSESSING OFFICER T OOK THE VIEW THAT ASSESSEE IS DOING BUSINESS OUT OF WHICH DEPOSITS ARE MADE IN TH IS ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, ON THESE TOTAL TRANSACTIONS OF RS. 13,74,000/- BY APPL YING PROFIT RATE OF 5%, INCOME FROM THESE TRANSACTIONS WAS WORKED OUT AT RS . 68,700/-. 4. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION FOR THE REASONS STATED IN PARA 3.5 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, AND HENCE THE ASSES SEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. I HAVE HEARD S/SHRI AMIT BHALLA AND PANKAJ BHALL A LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ASSESSEE, AND SHRI MANJIT SINGH LD. DR AT LENGT H AND HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ONE BANK ACCOUNT WITH ICICI BANK WHICH WAS NOT DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THERE 3 IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS DOING BUSINESS OUT OF WHICH DEPOSITS WERE MADE IN THIS ACCOUNT. ACCORDING TO THE LOWER AUTHOR ITIES, THE TOTAL TRANSACTIONS UNDERTAKEN WERE RS. 13,74,000/-. AS PER THE LD. R EPRESENTATIVES OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT GIVE CREDIT /DEDUCTION OF THE OPENING BALANCE TO THE TUNE OF RS. 18,720/- IN THE AFORESAI D BANK ACCOUNT. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HA D TAKEN A LOAN OF RS. 1,84,117/- FROM CITI BANK WHICH WAS ALSO DEPOSITED IN THE AFORESAID BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ADMITTED IN PAR A 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED DOCUMENTS REGARDING LOA N TAKEN FROM CITI BANK. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES T HAT THEY HAVE NOT GIVEN THE BENEFIT OF OPENING BALANCE AND THE LOAN TAKEN BY TH E ASSESSEE FROM CITI BANK. IN MY OPINION, THE ASSESSEE DESERVES BENEFIT OF RS. 18,720/- BEING OPENING BALANCE AND RS. 1,84,117/- BEING THE LOAN TAKEN FRO M CITI BANK. THUS, THE BALANCE DEPOSITS MADE IN THE AFORESAID BANK ACCOUNT [ RS. 13,74,000/- MINUS RS. 2,02,837/- (RS. 18,720 + RS. 1,84,117) ] COMES TO RS. 11,71,163/-. THEREFORE, ON THESE TOTAL TRANSACTIONS OF RS. 11,71,163/- BY APPL YING PROFIT RATE OF 5%, INCOME WORKS OUT TO RS. 58,558/-. THUS, THE ASSESSEE GETS A BENEFIT OF RS. 10,142/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO GIVE THE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE TO THE ABOVE EXTENT. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS ALLOWED PARTLY. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12.05.2015. SD/- (H.L.KARWA) VICE PRESIDENT DATED : 12 TH MAY, 2015 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR 4