Shri Jagdish Chandra Goyal, Ratlam V. The ITO, Neemuch

ITA 408/IND/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1524 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-01-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 22-06-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA
• Assessee Lawyers: AVINASH GAUR S
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, J.M. AND SHRI R.C.SHARM A, A.M. PAN NO. : ACHPG3845L I.T.A.NO. 408/IND/2012. A.Y. : 2004 - 05 SHRI JAGDISH CHANDRA GOYAL, PROPRIETOR VIJAY AUTOMOBILES, INCOME - TAX OFFICER, NEEMUCH JAWAD, VS DIST.NEEMUCH APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : S/SHRI MANJIT SACHDEVA & AVINASH GAUR, ADVOCATES RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R. A. VERMA, SR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 21 . 01 .201 3 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29 . 01 .201 3 O R D E R PER R. C. SHARMA, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) DATED 30 TH APRIL, 2012, FOR THE -: 2: - 2 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05, IN THE MATTER OF SOME OF T HE ADDITIONS CONFIRMED U/S 68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1 961. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN HEARD AND RECORDS PERUS ED. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS O F PETROL PUMP. DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 6,70, 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. OUT OF THIS ADD ITION, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS . 1.90 LAKHS AND CONFIRMED BALANCE ADDITION OF RS. 4.80 LAKHS AG AINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. HOWEVER, THE REVENUE IS NOT IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS . 1.90 LAKHS DELETED BY THE LD.CIT(A). FROM THE RECORD, WE FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED LOAN FROM 48 PERSONS AS PER S CHEDULE II OF BALANCE SHEET. THE LOAN AMOUNT WAS RS. 18000/- I N MOST OF THE CASES AND DETAILS OF WHICH WERE REPRODUCED BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER AT PAGE 2 AND 3 OF HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AS REQ UIRED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AFFID AVIT OF THE DEPOSITORS IN RESPECT OF LOAN AMOUNT OF RS. 1.80 LA KHS AND CONFIRMATION LETTER IN RESPECT OF LOAN AMOUNT OF RS . 2,82,000/- -: 3: - 3 . DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFI CER HAS ALSO DEPUTED INSPECTOR, WHO EXAMINED SOME OF THE DE POSITORS, WHO HAVE GIVEN LOAN AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,90,000/-. TH E INSPECTOR VISITED 11 INDIVIDUAL CREDITORS, WHO ACCE PTED THAT THEY HAVE ADVANCED AN AMOUNT OF LOAN OF RS. 1,90,00 0/-. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT AGREE WITH T HE INSPECTORS REPORT AND ADDED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF R S. 6.70 LAKHS IN ASSESSEES INCOME. HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) DEL ETED THIS ADDITION OF RS. 1.90 LAKHS. AGAINST WHICH REVENUE I S NOT IN APPEAL BEFORE US. CONTENTION OF LD. AUTHORIZED REPR ESENTATIVE WAS THAT HAD THE INSPECTOR/ASSESSING OFFICER MADE M ORE EFFORTS, THE OTHER DEPOSITORS WOULD HAVE BEEN FOUND GENUINE, MOST OF THEM HAVE FILED AFFIDAVITS AND CONFIRMATION LETTERS IN RESPECT OF THE LOAN GIVEN. RELIANCE WAS PLACED BY L D. A. R. ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F ORISSA CORPORATION, 159 ITR 78. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED BY T HE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE THAT CONFIRMATION LETTER S GIVEN BY THEM AND ALSO AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THEM IN RESPECT OF LOAN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE DULY PROVED THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSAC TION AND -: 4: - 4 IDENTITY AND CAPACITY OF THE DEPOSITORS. RELIANCE W AS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS :- 1. CIT VS. SHRI SANTOSH JAIN, 17 ITJ 129 (MP) 2. DEVAMANI ATHA VS. CIT, 112 ITR 837 (ORI) 3. CIT VS. ORISSA CORPN. P.LTD., 159 ITR 78 ( S. C .) 4. KHANDELWAL CONSTRUCTIONS VS. CIT, 227 ITR 900 (GAU). 5. MERCANTILE CREDIT CORPN. LIMITED VS. CIT, 245 ITR 160 (MP) 6. ASHOKPAL DAGA (HUF) VS. CIT, 220 ITR 452 (MP) 7. CIT VS. ADONIS FINANCE LIMITED, 164 TAXMAN 387 (DEL).] 2. AFTER GOING THROUGH ENTIRE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECO RD, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SH OULD HAVE MADE EFFORT TO FIND OUT GENUINENESS OF LOAN CONFIRM ATION LETTERS AND THE INSPECTOR SHOULD HAVE ALSO MADE MOR E FIELD INQUIRY FROM THE CONCERNED CREDITOR. THE FACT OF RE VENUE HAVING NOT COME IN APPEAL AGAINST THE DELETION OF A DDITION OF RS. 1.90 LAKHS FOR WHICH INSPECTOR HAD MADE INQUIRI ES, SUPPORTS THE CONTENTION OF LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENT ATIVE THAT -: 5: - 5 HAD THE INSPECTOR MADE INQUIRIES FROM REMAINING PER SONS ALSO, NO ADDITION COULD HAVE SUSTAINED. AS THE ASSESSEE H AS FILED LOAN CONFIRMATION LETTER IN RESPECT OF LOAN OF RS. 2.82 LAKHS ALONGWITH THEIR AFFIDAVITS, THE SAME SHOULD HAVE BE EN EXAMINED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS PER REQUIREMEN T OF SECTION 68. AS THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN DONE, IN THE I NTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER WITH RESPECT TO THE CASH CREDIT OF RS. 2.82 LAKHS FOR DECIDING AFRESH AFTER MAKING INQUIRY AS DISCUSSED HEREINABOVE. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED IN PART FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THIS ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 TH JANUARY, 2013. SD/ - SD/ - (JOGINDER SINGH) (R. C. SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 29 TH JANUARY, 2013. CPU* 2224