NAVIN PIPALWA, YAVATMAL V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2 YAVATMAL, YAVATMAL

ITA 47/NAG/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 103 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9792 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-10-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 19-10-2022
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 12-04-2022
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Accommodation entries
• Section: 147; 144; 142(1); 69A

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “एक सदस्य मामला” न्यायपीठ नागपुर में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, NAGPUR (Through Virtual Court) श्री एस.एस. विश्वनेत्र रवि, न्याविक सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आिकर अपील सं. / ITA No.47/NAG/2022 वनर्ाारण िर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Navin Pipalwa, Gopal Krushna Mandir Ward, Pandharkawada, Distt.-Yavatmal-445302 PAN : AZVPP1761H .......अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2, Yavatmal ......प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Mahavir Atal Revenue by : Shri G.J. Ninawe सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 20-10-2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 25-10-2022 आदेश / ORDER PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM : This appeal by the assessee against the order dated 08-102021 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi for assessment year 2012-13. 2. I find that this appeal was filed with a delay of 107 days. Upon hearing both the parties, I find that the delay of 107 days is saved by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed during National Lockdown 2 ITA No.47/NAG/2022, A.Y. 2012-13 imposed on account of pandemic Covid-19. Therefore, the delay of 107 days are condoned. 3. Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee challenging the action of AO in assuming jurisdiction u/s. 147 of the Act. In this regard, the ld. AR did not advance any arguments, hence, no adjudication is required. 4. Ground No. 2 raised by the assessee challenging the action of CIT(A) in confirming the addition made by the AO u/s. 69A of the Act. 5. Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. I note that the assessee is an individual and derives income from agency business of Haldiram Foods. It is noted that for the year under consideration, the assessee was a store keeper in the Jagdamba Traders. The ADIT (Inv.)-III, Indore found Shri Mukesh Chouhan, Prop. of M/s. Vinayak Traders is engaged in providing accommodation entries to various parties during the F.Y. 2011-12 (A.Y. 2012-13). According to the said investigation that various beneficiaries used to credit amounts into the bank account of the said M/s. Vinayak Traders and very said amounts were withdrawn from the said bank account belonging to M/s. Vinayak Traders and returned to the crediting parties in cash. According to the said information, the assessee before me is one such beneficiary. 6. The said information belonging to the assessee was forwarded to the AO. On an examination of such information, the AO found that the assessee credited an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- to the bank account of M/s. Vinayak Traders, being the assessee as beneficiary, the assessment 3 ITA No.47/NAG/2022, A.Y. 2012-13 in the case of assessee was reopened by recording satisfaction and obtaining necessary approval. 7. In the said reopening proceedings, the AO issued notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act, but no compliances were made on behalf of the assessee in response to the notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act. Having no option as no compliances were forthcoming from the assessee, the AO completed the assessment to his best judgment by adding an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- as accommodation entries received by the assessee in respect of his own unexplained money to the total income of the assessee u/s. 69A of the Act vide its order dated 16-12-2019 passed u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act. Having aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority. The assessee made submissions through ITBA portal. According to the CIT(A) that no proper replies filed in First Appellate proceedings, only an affidavit stating that the assessee has only one bank account in Omprakash Deora Peoples Co-operative Bank Ltd., Hingoli. According to the CIT(A) no onus has been discharged by the assessee before him and no supporting evidences like books of accounts, bank statements etc. were filed in support of contentions made by the assessee. The CIT(A) confirmed the view of AO in adding the said amount of Rs.15,00,000/- to the total income of the assessee u/s. 69A of the Act. The ld. AR, Shri Mahavir Atal drew my attention to the affidavit at page 1 of the paper book and argued that the assessee has only one bank account and no substantial income was reflected in the said bank account. He submits that the assessee was in small employment deriving very meager amounts as a salary. The ld. AR drew my attention to the bank statement which is at page 2 of the paper book and argued that there are no such 4 ITA No.47/NAG/2022, A.Y. 2012-13 entries as recorded by the AO, except the half yearly saving interest credit in the bank account. Further, he vehemently argued the view of AO that the assessee is a beneficiary of M/s. Vinayak Traders transactions is completely misconceived but nowhere the AO found that the assessee is benefited from the transactions of M/s. Vinayak Traders. The AO did not conduct independent enquiry and no details of money trail was discussed in the assessment order. The ld. AR vehemently argued that the AO made the addition u/s. 69A of the Act only on conjecture and surmises which was without appreciating the evidences brought on record by the assessee in the First Appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) confirmed the order of AO is not justified. 8. The ld. DR, Shri G.J. Ninawe relied on the orders of both the authorities below. I note that there was no compliances before the AO as could be seen from the assessment order and that no appearance was put up by the assessee in response to the notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act. Before the CIT(A) also instead of contending that the AO did not conduct independent enquiry and no details of money trail was referred, no evidence whatsoever were filed by the assessee except an affidavit and a bank statement. There were many opportunities given by the AO as well as CIT(A) but no evidences in support of claim of assessee were ever produced before both the authorities below. The provisions u/s. 69A requires explanation of assessee about the nature and source of acquisition of money and if any explanation offered by the assessee is not satisfactory in the opinion of AO, the money is deemed to be income of the assessee. Admittedly, as discussed above, no explanation was offered by the assessee in the assessment proceedings to the satisfaction of the AO and it is 5 ITA No.47/NAG/2022, A.Y. 2012-13 established that the AO framed assessment to the best of his judgment u/s. 144 of the Act. Therefore, the provisions u/s. 69A of the Act requires explanation by the assessee and when no such information offered by the assessee, I deem it proper in the interest of justice to remand the matter to the file of AO for its fresh verification. The assessee is liberty to file evidences, if any, in support of his claim. Thus, ground No. 2 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. 9. In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 25 th October, 2022. Sd/- (S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; दिनाांक / Dated : 25 th October, 2022. रदव आदेश की प्रविवलवप अग्रेवर्ि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi. 4. The CIT concerned. 5. धिभागीय प्रधिधनधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, “एक सदस्य मामला” बेंच, नागपुर / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Nagpur. 6. गार्ड फ़ाइल / Guard File. //सत्यादपत प्रदत// True Copy// आिेशानुसार / BY ORDER, वररष्ठ दनजी सदिव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune