Anil Kumar Patra, Bhubaneswar V. ITO, Ward-2(2), Bhubaneswar

ITA 428/CTK/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7178 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 28-03-2017
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 08-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D K PRADHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: P K MISHRA
• Keywords: Business expenditure

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK SMC BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.428 /CTK/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005 - 06 ANIL KUMAR PATRA, PLOT NO.62, PUNJABI COLONY, SATYA NAGAR, BHUBANESWAR. VS. ITO, WARD 2(2), BHUBANESWAR, PAN/GIR NO. AGDPP 8558 R (APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P.K.MISHRA, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI D.K.PRADHAN , DR DATE OF HEARING : 28 /03 / 2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 2 8 /03 / 2017 O R D E R THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) - 2, BHUBANESWAR, DATED 18.8.2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06 . 2. THE SOLE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS THAT THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.10,41,500/ - FOR DEPO SITS MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER MADE ADDITION OF RS.10,41,50 0 / - FOR CASH DEPOSITS IN 2 ITA NO.428/CTK/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005 - 06 SAVING BANK ACCOUNT NO.906182 WITH UCO BANK, SECRETARIAT BRANCH, BHUBANESWAR. 4. ON APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ARRESTED IN A CRIMINAL CASE AND WAS CONFINED IN THE SPECIAL JAIL AT BHUBANESW AR AND, THEREFORE, HE COULD NOT FURNISH DETAILS AS CALLED FOR BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. CONSIDERING THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT(A) ADMITTED THE SUBMISSION AND CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE LETTER N O.ITO/WARD - 4(2)/BBSR/2015 - 16/10651 DATED 1.3.2016 SUBMITTED HIS REPORT, WHEREIN, THE ASSESSING OFFICER STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FIL E THE REQUIRED DETAILS BEFORE HIM. 5. WHEN CONFRONTED WITH THE REMAND REPORT, THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE F ILED BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004 - 05 AND 2005 - 06, CASH FLOW STATEMENT FOR THE ABOVE MENTIONED PERIOD AND VOUCHER OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF OLD VEHICLE DURING THE PERIOD. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ABOVE DOCUMENTS PR ODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER CORROBORATED THE SUBSTANTIAL EXPLANATION RELATING TO THE UNEXPLAINED MONEY OF RS.10,41,500/ - AS TREATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE MATERIALS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND WITHOUT EXAMINING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT PRODUCED BEFORE HIM, GIVEN AN ERRONEOUS VIEW IN HIS REMAND ORDER. 3 ITA NO.428/CTK/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005 - 06 6. THE CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE NEEDS TO WITHDRAW MONEY FOR RUNNI NG HIS HOUSE HOLD EXPENDITURE AS WELL AS FOR CONDUCTING THE BUSINESS. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE THAT WHATEVER HE IS WITHDRAWING, HE IS ABLE TO DEPOSIT OUT OF THAT WITHDRAWAL S . THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED A COMPREHENSIVE CASH FLOW STATEMENT COMPRISING THE HOU SEHOLD EXPENSES AND BUSINESS EXPENDITURE AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM EITHER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR REMAND PROCEEDINGS AND CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 7. BEFORE ME, LD AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIV E OF THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED COPY OF BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WITH UCO BANK FROM WHERE IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK AS UNDER: DATE AMOUNT (RS.) 16.4.2004 50,000 19.4.2004 25,000 23.4.2004 2,10,000 27.4.2004 9,000 26.5.2004 21,000 28.5.2004 1,50,000 30.6.2004 4,75,000 14.8.2004 50,000 28.5.2004 500 8.1.2005 14,000 18.1.2005 20,000 19.2.2005 ` 10,000 23.3.2005 5,000 31.3.2005 2,000 TOTAL: 10,41,500 I ALSO FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD WITHDRAWN THE FOLLOWING AMOUNTS AS UNDER: 4 ITA NO.428/CTK/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005 - 06 DATE AMOUNT (RS.) 3.4.2004 1,90,000 12.4.2004 10,000 28.4.2004 30,000 21.5.2004 1,50,000 7.6.2004 4,70,000 6.7.2004 1,00,000 26.7.2004 3,60,000 19.8.2004 20,000 23.8.2004 5,000 25.8.2004 30,000 2.11.2004 7,000 12.1.2005 2,000 24.1.2005 10,000 28.1.2005 8,000 11.2.2005 2,000 31.3.2005` 1,00,000 TOTAL: 14,94,000 THUS, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE WITHDRAWAL S OF RS.14 ,94,000/ - AND DEPOSITS OF RS.10,41,5000/ - IN THE BANK ACCOUNT . HENCE, THE WITHDRAWALS IS MORE THAN THE AMOUNT OF CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. FURTHER, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE WITHDRAWAL MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE SAID ACCOUNT ARE EARLIER TO THE D EPOSITS MADE IN THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT EXCEPT FOR DEPOSIT OF RS.2,10,000 MADE O N 23.4.2004 . THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE EARLIER WITHDRAWALS FROM THE BANK WERE UTILIZED FOR MAKING DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE SO URCE OF DEPOSIT OF RS.8,31,500 / - IS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY LD DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING. IN THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION, AS THE EARLIER WITHDRAWALS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FROM 5 ITA NO.428/CTK/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005 - 06 HIS BANK ACCOUNT EXPLAINS THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS IN THE BANK AT A LATER DATE, THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS IN THE BANK OF RS.8,31,500 / - STANDS EXPLAINED AND HENCE, NO ADDIT I ON U/S.69 OF THE ACT OF RS.8,31 ,500/ - IS CALLED FOR. THE ADDITION OF RS.2,10,000/ - TAKES CARE OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AS WELL AS THE EXPENDITURE FOR CONDUCTING BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, I DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.8,31 ,500/ - AND CONFIRM THE BALANC E AMOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2,10,000/ - AND PARTLY ALLOW THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRO NOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 /03 /2017 IN THE PRESENCE OF PARTIES. S D/ - ( N.S SAINI) A CCOUNTANT MEMBER CUTTACK; DATED 2 8 /03 /2017 B.K.PARIDA, SPS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, CUTTACK 1. THE APPELLANT : ANIL KUMAR PATRA, PLOT NO.62, PUNJABI COLONY, SATYA NAGAR, BHUBANESWAR. 2. THE RESPONDENT. ITO, WARD 2(2), BHUBANESWAR, 3. THE CIT(A) - 2, BHUBANESWAR 4. PR.CIT 2, BHUBANESWAR. 5. DR, ITAT, CUTTACK 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//