Tukaram R. Shinde, Kolhapur V. Income-tax Officer, Ward - 1 (4), Kolhapur

ITA 384/PUN/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7442 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-03-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 18-03-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT ITA No.384/PUN/2020 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Tukaram Ramchandra Shinde Near Shivaji Sah. Bank A/P Gadhinglaj, Kolhapur-416502 PAN : BODPS1365C Vs. ITO, Ward 1(4), Kolhapur Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER R.S.SYAL, VP : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 16-01-2020 passed by the CIT(A), Kolhapur-1 in relation to the assessment year 2009-10. 2. The only issue raised in this appeal is against the confirmation of addition of Rs.7,82,600 in respect of deposits made in the bank. 3. Tersely stated, the facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer (AO) obtained information from ADIT (Inv), Kolhapur Assessee by Shri Pramod Shingte Revenue by Shri Piyush Kumar Singh Yadav Date of hearing 03-03-2022 Date of pronouncement 07-03-2022 ITA No.384/PUN/2020 Tukaram Ramchandra Shinde 2 about cash deposits made by the assessee in Dhansampada NSPS Ltd., Gadhinglaj. Notice u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) was issued, which was duly served on the assessee. In the absence of any response coming from the side of assessee, the AO made the addition of Rs.8,32,600, being a sum total of the three cash deposit transactions in Dhansampada NSPS Ltd. The assessee explained before the ld. CIT(A) that sum of Rs.6,75,000 was withdrawn by him from Shri Gajanan Nagari Sah. Pat Sanstha Ltd., which was deposited with Dhansampada NSPS Ltd. and the remaining amount of Rs.1,57,000 was out of sale of jewellery. The ld. CIT(A) accepted the contention of assessee to the extent of Rs.50,000 only out of Rs.6,75,000 claimed to have been withdrawn from Shri Gajanan Nagari Sah. Pat Sanstha Ltd. As regards the remaining amount of Rs.1,57,000, the ld. CIT(A) did not give any credence to sale of jewellery. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee has come up in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. I have heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record. A copy of the pass book with Dhansampada NSPS Ltd. has been placed at page 4 of the paper book. There are three entries of Rs.6,25,000, Rs.1,57,000 and Rs.50,000 deposited ITA No.384/PUN/2020 Tukaram Ramchandra Shinde 3 on 22.12.2008, which constituted the basis of the addition. The assessee obtained a loan of Rs.6,75,000 from Shri Gajanan Nagari Sah. Pat Sanstha Ltd., whose copy is available at page 5 of paper book. Out of such loan of Rs.6,75,000 obtained by the assessee on 19.12.2008, a sum of Rs.50,000 was withdrawn in cash which was deposited in Dhansampada NSPS Ltd., for which the ld. CIT(A) accepted the contention and deleted the addition. The statement on page 5 shows an entry of Rs.6,25,000 with the remarks “To CH. No.782842 (K.D.C.C. BANK)206/1. This Rs.6,25,000 was transferred from the account of Shri Gajanan Nagari Sah. Pat Sanstha Ltd. through cheque to Dhansampada NSPS Ltd. The statement at page 4 with Dhansampada NSPS Ltd. clearly mentions “KDCC”. Thus, it is evident that no cash of Rs.6,25,000 was deposited in Dhansampada NSPS Ltd. and deposit of Rs.6,25,000 was only by means of cheque which was transferred from Shri Gajanan Nagari Sah. Pat Sanstha Ltd. 5. As regards the remaining amount of Rs.1,57,000, the assessee has placed on record a document showing sale of jewellery amounting to Rs.1,57,000. There is a mention of two items; one of Rs.1,40,000 and other of Rs.17,000 with remarks “Ganjan and Kangan”. The name of assessee `Tukaram‟ is also appearing on ITA No.384/PUN/2020 Tukaram Ramchandra Shinde 4 the said document dated 15.11.2008. The ld. CIT(A) did not accept the genuineness of the document on the ground that the same was jewellery Estimate and not the invoice. Considering the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case; the situation of assessee more specifically the amount of sale of jewellery at Rs.1,57,000, I am satisfied that the assessee discharged the onus cast upon him in this regard. I, therefore, order to delete the addition. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 7 th March, 2022. Sd/- (R.S.SYAL) VICE PRESIDENT प ु णे Pune; ददिधांक Dated : 7 th March, 2022 GCVSR आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेपिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपीऱधर्थी / The Appellant; 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent; 3. The CIT(A), Kolhapur-1 4. 5. The concerned CIT विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण, पुणे / DR „SMC‟, ITAT, Pune 6. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file आदेशान ु सार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune ITA No.384/PUN/2020 Tukaram Ramchandra Shinde 5 Date 1. Draft dictated on 03-03-2022 Sr.PS 2. Draft placed before author 07-03-2022 Sr.PS 3. Draft proposed & placed before the second member JM 4. Draft discussed/approved by Second Member. JM 5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS Sr.PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS 7. Date of uploading order Sr.PS 8. File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS 9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk 10. Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11. Date of dispatch of Order. *