Sridhar S., Bangalore V. ITO, Bangalore

ITA 401/BANG/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0161 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 04-07-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 21-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BIPIN C N JT
• Assessee Lawyers: H N KHINCHA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.401/BANG/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 SHRI SRIDHARA S., # 354, 8 TH MAIN, 7 TH CROSS, PADMANABHANAGAR, BANGALORE 560 070. PAN: ARPPS 8797N VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 14(4), BANGALORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI H.N. KHINCHA, CA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI BIPIN, C.N., JT.CIT(DR) DATE OF HEARING : 04.07.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29.07.2016 O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS), LTU, BANGALORE DATED 31.01.2014 FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 INTER ALIA ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- ITA NO.401/BANG/2014 PAGE 2 OF 4 1. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ERRED IN TAXING A SUM OF RS. 27,52,400/- AS UNEXPLAINED DEPOSIT IN BANK, AS ALSO A SUM OF RS . 22,05,670/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AND THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ENHANCING THE A DDITION ON ACCOUNT OF BANK DEPOSIT TO RS. 31,33,400/- ALBEIT DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 22,05,670/-. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN PASSING THE ORD ER WITHOUT FULLY HEARING THE APPELLANT. THE ORDER PASSED BY CI T(A), BEING AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND EQUIT Y REQUIRED TO BE QUASHED. 3. IN ANY CASE AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE AUTHORITI ES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN NOT PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE FACTS A ND THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE ON PROPER APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND FA CTS OF THE CASE IT WILL CLEAR THAT THERE ARE NO UNEXPLAINED CASH DE POSIT IN THE BANK AND THEREFORE THE ENTIRE ADDITION ON THIS ACCOUNT A S ENHANCED BY CIT(A) REQUIRES TO BE DELETED. 4. ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE THE APPELLANT PRAYS, T HAT THE ADDITION AS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND AS SU STAINED / ENHANCED BY THE CIT(A) BE DELETED. 5. THE APPELLANT DENIES THE LIABILITY TO PAY INTER EST. THE INTEREST HAVING BEEN DEBITED ERRONEOUSLY IS TO BE D ELETED. 6. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND ON OTHER GROUNDS TO BE ADDUCED AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT IS REQUESTED THAT THE IM PUGNED ORDER BE QUASHED OR AT LEAST THE ADDITION SUSTAINED / ENHANCED BE DELETED AND INTEREST LEVIED BE ALSO DELETED. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED ON THE BASIS O F AIR INFORMATION WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK. THOUG H THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT, BUT IT WAS NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. ITA NO.401/BANG/2014 PAGE 3 OF 4 3. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO TWO BANK STATEMENTS, ONE O F KARNATAKA BANK LTD. AND THE OTHER OF ICICI BANK LTD., WITH THE SUBMISSI ON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE WITHDRAWAL FROM ICICI BANK LTD. AND DEPOSITS I N THE KARNATAKA BANK LTD., THEREFORE THE DEPOSITS ARE EXPLAINED. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, A SPECIFIC QUERY W AS RAISED AS TO WHETHER AIR INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED WITH RESPECT T O BOTH THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND IN RESPONSE THERETO, IT WAS STATED THAT AIR INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED WITH RESPECT TO KARNATAKA BANK LTD. F ROM A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF BOTH THE BANK STATEMENTS, WE FIND THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS ALSO MADE CERTAIN DEPOSITS IN THE ICICI BANK LTD. THEREFORE, THE TOTAL CASH FLOW STATEMENT CAN ONLY BE EXAMINED IN THE LIGHT OF BOTH THE STATEMENTS OF THE BANK. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE CERTAIN DEPOSITS IN ICICI BANK LTD. AS WELL AS KARNATAKA BANK LTD., WE ARE OF THE VIEW THA T THIS ISSUE REQUIRES FRESH ADJUDICATION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCOR DINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) AND RESTORE IT TO ASSESSI NG OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO EXAMINE THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN BOTH THE BANKS. IF THE ASSESSEE FAILS TO EXPLAIN THE SO URCE OF DEPOSITS, THE AO MAY MAKE ADDITION U/S. 69 OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) IS SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER IS RESTORE D TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ITA NO.401/BANG/2014 PAGE 4 OF 4 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 29 TH DAY OF JULY, 2016. SD/- SD/- ( INTURI RAMA RAO ) (SUNIL KUMAR YAD AV ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDIC IAL MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 29 TH JULY, 2016. /D S/ COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE.