GAUTAM R.KAMRA, MUMBAI V. ITO 19(1)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 419/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 88174 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-01-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 15-12-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 19-01-2012
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIVEK BATRA
• Assessee Lawyers: HEMANT VORA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 133(6)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCO ME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL G BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./I.T.A. NO. 419/M/2012 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007 - 2008 ) GAUTAM R. KAMRA, 601, RAM LAXMI NIWAS, 16 TH ROAD, KHAR (W), MUMBAI 52. / VS. ITO - 19(1)(3), MUMBAI. ./ PAN : AHOPK9158L ( / APPELLANT) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI HEMANT VORA / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI VIVEK BATRA, DR / DATE OF HEARING : 15.12.2014 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21 .01.2015 / O R D E R PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 19.1.2012 IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A)30, MUMBAI DATED 14.10.2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 2008. IN THIS APPEAL, ASSESSEE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS WHICH READ AS UNDER: 1.1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING A SUM OF RS. 3,09,620/ - AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT IN RESPECT OF TWO LOAN PARTIES. 1.2. THE LD CIT (A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE SAID CONFIRMATIONS WERE RECEIVED FROM THE SAID TWO LOAN PARTIES AD THE DISCREPANCY WAS ONLY ON ACCO UNT OF AMOUNT OF INTEREST PAID AND ACCOUNTED BY THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL RELATES TO THE DECISION OF THE CIT (A) IN CONFIRMING THE UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS INVOLVING TWO PARTIES AMOUNTING TO RS. 3,09,620/ - . IN THE A SSESSMENT, ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS. 13,57,979/ - WITH REGARD TO THE FRESH UNSECURED LOANS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. DURING THE PROCEED INGS BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, CIT (A) GRANTED PART RELIEF ON THIS ADDITION AFTER OBTAINING REMAND REPORT. IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSEE SUBMITTED LOAN CONFIRMATION WITH THE COPIES OF BA NK ACCOUNTS AND OTHER RELEVANT 2 DETAILS OF THE CREDITORS. ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED MOST OF THE CREDITS BARRING THE LOAN CREDIT FROM DEV I KISHAN B PAHLAJANI AND MR. MANISHA H. JAIN. THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THESE TWO CREDITS READ AS FOLLOWS. ..ON VERIFICATION OF REPLY, IT IS NOTED THAT IN THE CASE OF DEVIKISHAN B PAHLAJANI, ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED INTEREST PAYMENT OF RS. 20,865/ - . HOWEVER, AS PER THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF DEV I KISHAN B PAHLAJANI, IT WAS SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S 133(6), INTEREST REC EIVED BY HIM ONLY RS. 9,490/ - . IN CASE OF MANISHA H. JAIN, INTEREST PAID TO HIM OF RS. 10,677/ - BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, AS PER THE CONFIRMATIONS, INTEREST RECEIVED BY MR. MANISHA H JAIN IS RS. 9,620/ - . CIT (A) CONSIDERED THE REMAND REPORT AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,09,620/ - INVOLVING THE ABOVE SAID TWO CREDITORS. PARAS 6.2 AND 6.3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER ARE RELEVANT. AGAINST THE CONFIRMING OF THE ADDITIONS, ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MENTIONED THAT THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS ARE DULY SENT BY THE CREDITORS WERE IGNORED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. FURTHER, HE ARGUED THAT THE SAID ADDITION IS UNSUSTAINABLE AS IT WAS MADE ON FRIVOLOUS GROUNDS OF RECONCILIATIO N. THE DIFFERENCE IN FIGURES OF INTEREST AMOUNT MENTIONED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT (A) ON ACCOUNT OF COMPUTATION OF INTEREST INCOME BY THE OTHER PARTIES / CREDITORS. OTHERWISE, THE FIGURES MENTIONED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME ARE PROPER AND SHOU LD NOT BE DISTURBED. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD DR HIGHLIGHTED THE THIRD PARTY CONFIRMATIONS PROCURED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT AND THE REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE O RDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS THE CONFIRMATIONS PLACED BEFORE US IN THE PAPER BOOK. CONFIRMATION FROM MR. MANISH H. JAIN PLACED AT PAGE 16 OF THE PAPER BOOK SHOWS THE CONFIRMATION OF MR. MANISH H JAIN, WHO IS A PROPRIETOR OF KOMAL FASHIONS. HE CONFIRMED THE FACT OF GIVING LOAN OF RS. 1.5 LAKHS TO THE ASSESSEE VIDE CHEQUE NO. 775869 ON 15.1.2007. FURTHER, PAGE 15 OF THE PAPER BOOK SHOWS THE FACT OF GIVING LOAN OF OTHER AMOUNT OF RS. 1.5 LAKHS BY DEVIKISHAN B PAHLAJANI. THUS, SO FAR AS THE PAY MENT OF LOANS FROM THESE TWO PARTIES @ RS.1.5 LAKHS EACH SHOULD BE ACCEPTED ON THE SAME ANALOGY OF THE CREDITORS. SO FAR AS THE QUANTUM OF DIFFERENCE IN THE INTEREST CALCULATIONS AMOUNTING TO RS. 9,620/ - , THE SAME SHOULD BE EXAMINED 3 AND ALLOWED BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER AFTER DUE VERIFICATION OF RECORDS. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION, IN PRINCIPLE, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE A SSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 1 S T JANUAR Y, 2015. S D / - S D / - (VIJAY PAL RAO) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; 2 1 .1.2015 . . ./ OKK , SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE . //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI