ITO, Jaipur V. ANIL LODHA, Jaipur

ITA 403/JPR/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 40323114 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-09-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 03-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D K MEENA
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 131

Judgement Text

1 ITA 403-11 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH B JAIPUR. ( BEFORE SHRI R.K. GUPTA AND SHRI N.L. KALRA ) ITA NO. 403/JP/2011 ASSTT. YEAR : 2005-06. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, VS. SHRI ANIL LODHA, WARD 2(3), 7, GEEJGARH VIHAR, JAIPUR. HAWA SARAK, JAIPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI D.K. MEENA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI RAJEEV SOGANI DATE OF HEARING : 18.8.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02.09.2011. ORDER DATED : 02/092011. PER R.K. GUPTA, J.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL BY DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. THE DEPARTMENT IS OBJECTING IN DELETING THE ADDI TION OF RS. 16,25,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS. 3. THE ASSESSEE IS AN EXPORTER OF HANDICRAFT ITEMS. THE ASSESSEE INTRODUCED FRESH CAPITAL OF RS. 16,18,631/- IN HIS PROPRIETORSHIP CO NCERN. FOR INTRODUCING THIS CAPITAL VARIOUS UNSECURED LOANS WERE RAISED ON PERSONAL CAP ACITY AND DEPOSITED IN PERSONAL ACCOUNT. BY MAKING WITHDRAWAL FROM THE PERSONAL AC COUNT, THE DEPOSITS WERE MADE IN THE PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN. AS PER ORDER OF AO, IN SPITE OF VARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES THE 2 ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT AND, THEREFORE, ADDITION OF RS. 16,25,000/- WAS MADE BY THE AO. COPIES OF CONFIRMATIONS FOR UN SECURED LOANS ALONG WITH PAN AND COMPLETE ADDRESS WERE FILED BEFORE LD. CIT (A) AS A DDITIONAL EVIDENCE. REMAND REPORT FROM AO WAS CALLED FOR. HOWEVER, INSPITE OF REPEAT ED REMINDERS, REMAND REPORT OF THE AO WAS NOT RECEIVED. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL OF THE A SSESSEE WAS DISPOSED OFF AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND OTHE R MATERIAL ON RECORD. 4. THE LD. CIT (A) NOTED THAT A SUM OF RS. 14,25,00 0/- WAS TAKEN AS LOAN FROM 12 PERSONS AND FURTHER RS. 2,00,000/- WAS RAISED OUT O F SALE OF CAR. IN RESPECT OF THE 12 PERSONS CONFIRMATIONS WERE FILED ALONG WITH PAN AND COMPLETE ADDRESS. REPAYMENT OF LOAN WAS ALSO MADE. ALL THE LOANS WERE OBTAINED TH ROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE. SINCE THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT DOING WELL, TH EREFORE, BORROWINGS WERE MADE FROM VARIOUS PARTIES. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED BEFORE LD. C IT (A) THAT OUT OF 12 PERSONS, 10 PERSONS WERE SERVED WITH SUMMONS UNDER SECTION 131 AND THEY APPEARED BEFORE THE AO DURING REMAND PROCEEDINGS AND THEIR STATEMENTS WERE RECORDED AND ALL OF THEM HAVE CONFIRMED THEIR LOAN TRANSACTIONS WITH THE ASSESSEE . IN CASE OF SHRI MAHESH KUMAR SUREKHA, ANOTHER CREDITOR FROM WHOM RS. 2,00,000/- WAS OBTAINED, RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS WAS CHANGED AND ON NEW ADDRESS NO NOTICE WAS SERVED INSPITE OF INFORMING THE CORRECT ADDRESS. IN ANOTHER CASE SUSHILA PATHAK FROM WHOM RS. 55,000/- WAS RECEIVED, SUMMON UNDER SECTION 131 WAS SERVED AND THE AO WAS INFORME D THAT SHE IS UNABLE TO COME TO JAIPUR FROM NATHDWARA ON ACCOUNT OF FAMILY PROBLEM. 5. AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THESE DETAILS, THE LD. CIT (A) FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAS DULY DISCHARGED HIS ONUS BY FILING COMPLETE DETAILS. AL MOST ALL THE PERSONS WERE APPEARED BEFORE THE AO AND THEIR STATEMENTS WERE RECORDED. HOWEVER, FOR THE REASONS KNOWN TO 3 AO, REMAND REPORT WAS NOT SENT TO LD. CIT (A). ACCO RDINGLY, THE LD. CIT (A) DELETED THE ADDITION BY HOLDING THAT LOAN OF RS. 16,25,000/- WA S GENUINE. 6. THE LD. D/R HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF AO. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESS EE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A). 8. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ORDERS OF AO AND LD. CIT ( A), WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE FINDING OF LD. CIT (A) WHO HAS DISCUSSED THE CASE I N DETAIL. THE CREDITORS WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO AND THE AO CHOOSES NOT TO SEND REMAND REPORT. IT SHOWS THAT THE AO HAS NOT SENT THE REMAND REPORT KNOWINGLY FOR THE REASON S THAT ALL THE CREDITS WERE FOUND BY HIM AS GENUINE. ACCORDINGLY WE HOLD THAT LD. CIT ( A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY AO. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS DISMI SSED. 10. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 02 .09.2011. SD/- SD/- ( N.L. KALRA ) ( R.K. GUPTA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JAIPUR, D/ COPY FORWARDED TO :- THE ITO WARD 2(3), JAIPUR. SHRI ANIL LODHA, JAIPUR. THE CIT (A) THE CIT THE D/R GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 403/JP/2011) BY ORDER, AR ITAT JAIPUR. 4