GOVARDHAN G. VANANI, MUMBAI V. DCIT (OSD 1) CEN RG 7, MUMBAI

ITA 382/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4004 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 02-12-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 16-01-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: KUNJAN SHA H
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Source of fund
• Section: 68; 144

Judgement Text

, , G, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES G, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.382/MUM/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 GOVAR DHAN G. VANANI 112/115, THE JEWEL BUILDING, TATA ROAD NO.3, NEAR ROXY THEATRE, OPERA HOUSE, MUMBAI-400 004 / VS. DCIT (OSD - 1), CENTRAL RANGE-7, MUMBAI (ASSESSEE ) (REVENUE) P.A. NO. AABPV5861F / ASSESSEE BY SHRI KUNJAN SHA H (AR) / REVENUE BY SHRI NITIN WAGHMODE (DR) / DATE OF HEARING : 20/01/2016 / DATE OF ORDER: 12/02/2016 / O R D E R PER ASHWANI TANEJA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER): THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-4 0, MUMBAI {(IN SHORT CIT(A)}, DATED 15.10.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, PASSED AGAINST THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (IN SHORT AO ) U/S 144 OF THE ACT. GOVERDHAN G. VANANI 2 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, ARGUMENTS WERE MADE B Y SHRI KUNJAN SHAH, AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND BY SHRI NITIN WAGHMODE, DEPARTMENT AL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. 3. IN THIS APPEAL, THE SOLE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASS ESSEE IS WITH REGARD TO ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING T HE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 FO R AN AMOUNT AGGREGATING TO RS.95,00,000/- BEING THE LOAN S RECEIVED FROM TWO PARTIES VIZ A SUM OF RS.25,00,000 /- FROM SHRI RATILAL A. SAPARIA AND RS.70,00,000/- FROM SAM KIT DIAMONDS. 3.1. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING IT WAS ARGUED BY SHRI KUNJAN SHAH, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ALTHO UGH CONFIRMATIONS HAVE ALREADY BEEN PLACED ON RECORD FR OM THE AFORESAID TWO PARTIES BUT SOME MORE EVIDENCES ARE D ESIRED TO BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SOURCE S AND CREDITWORTHINESS IN THE HANDS OF THESE TWO PARTIES. 3.2. IT IS NOTED BY US THAT ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS FRAMED IN THIS CASE EX-PARTE U/S. 144 OF THE ACT. THE AO HAD MADE THE ADDITION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN A HIGHLY CRYPTI C MANNER FOR WANT OF CONFIRMATIONS. 3.3. IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), ALTHOUGH CONFIRMA TIONS WERE FILED BUT HE CONFIRMED THE ADDITION ON THE GRO UND THAT GOVERDHAN G. VANANI 3 ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO SHOW SOURCES OF INCOME AND FAILED TO FILE INCOME TAX RETURN, BALANCE SHEET AND BANK STAT EMENT ETC. OF THE AFORESAID PARTIES. 3.4. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES AS WELL AS ORDERS PASSED BY THE LOWER AUTHORI TIES. IT IS NOTED BY US PROPER JUSTICE HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN TO TH IS CASE. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED EX-PARTE. THE LD. CIT(A ) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT SOME MORE DOCUMENTS WERE REQUIRED TO BE FILED. IT IS NOTED TH AT FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE APPELLATE ORDER THAT IT DOES NOT APP EAR FROM ITS READING WHETHER LD. CIT(A) HAD ASKED THE ASSESSEE T O FILE SOME MORE EVIDENCES TO CLEAR HIS DOUBTS. 3.5. ON THE OTHER HAND, ASSESSEES COUNSEL HAS SUBMITTE D BEFORE US THAT IF ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY IS GIVEN, TH EN COMPLETE EVIDENCES CAN BE FILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THESE LOANS, REMOVING ALL THE DOUBTS. LD. DR HAS ALSO SHOWED NO OBJECTION IF THIS CASE IS SENT BACK TO THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. 3.6. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE BROUGHT BEFORE US, WE FIND IT APPROPRIATE TO S END ALL THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE GROUNDS RAISED BEFORE US TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. THE AO IS FREE TO MA KE REQUISITE INQUIRIES, AS PER LAW AND FACTS, TO CLEAR ALL HIS D OUBTS. THE ASSESSEE SHALL FILE ALL REQUISITE EVIDENCES TO SUBS TANTIATE THESE LOANS AS PER LAW, FOR WHICH AO SHALL GIVE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. THE AO SHALL PASS THE O RDER AFTER GOVERDHAN G. VANANI 4 CONSIDERING ALL THE EVIDENCES AS MAY BE FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE, AS PER LAW AND FACTS. THUS, GROUNDS RAISED IN THIS APPEAL ARE TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12 .02. 2016. SD/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) SD/- (ASHWANI TANEJA) ! / JUDICIAL MEMBER '! / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 12 / 02 /2016 CTX? P.S/. .. # $%&'&($ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. !'# / THE RESPONDENT. 3. $# $# % ( ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. $# $# % / CIT(A)- , MUMBAI 5. ()* # !+ , $# # +- , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. *. / / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, '#( ! //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI