Sh. Harjit Singh, Ludhiana V. ITO, Ludhiana

ITA 475/CHANDI/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 80888 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-09-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 18-09-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 01-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J S NAGAR
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES B CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R. SOOD, ACOCUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 475/CHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEA R 2008-09 HARJIT SINGH V I.T.O. WARD VI(1) 324-L LUDHIANA MODEL TOWN LUDHIANA AJTPS 7546 M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI SUDHIR SEHGAL RESPONDENT BY SHRI J.S. NAGAR DATE OF HEARING 18.9.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 23.9.2014 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, JM THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-II, LUDHIANA DATED 8.3.2013 FOR ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2008-09 CHALLENGING THE ADDITION OF RS. 11,47,000/-. 2 BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESS ING OFFICER FOUND THAT THERE WAS CASH DEPOSITS OF RS. 11,47,000/- IN ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WITH CITI BANK. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THESE AMOUNTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER CONS IDERING THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES OF CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT, THERE FORE SAME WAS TREATED AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES AND ADDITION WAS ACCORDINGLY MADE. 3 NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE TH E LD. CIT(A), THEREFORE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED. 4 THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BY REFERRING TO THE DOCUMENTS IN PAPER BOOK SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASK ED FOR COPY OF BANK ACCOUNTS AND SOURCES OF DEPOSIT WHICH HAVE BEEN PRO PERLY REPLIED AND COPIES OF BANK ACCOUNTS WERE FILED. HE HAS SUBMITT ED THAT THE ASSESSEE 2 HAD WITHDRAWN SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT FROM ANOTHER BANK ACCOUNT WITH PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK (COPY OF WHICH IS ALSO FILED IN THE P APER BOOK) AND SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SHOW THAT SUFFICIENT AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN WITHDRAWN FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEPOSITING A MOUNT IN CITI BANK. HE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE WITHDRAWALS FROM THE SAME BANK ACCOUNT WITH CITI BANK (COPY OF WHICH IS FILED IN PAPER BOOK) TO SHOW AVAILABILITY OF SUFFICIENT CASH TO TH E ASSESSEE FOR REDEPOSIT IN CITI BANK. HE HAS FILED COPY OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED OF THE FIRM M/S OCEAN SHIPPING AGENCY IN WHICH HE WAS A PARTNER DUR ING RELEVANT PERIOD, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE WITHDRAWAL FROM THE SAID FIRM ALSO. HE HAS REFERRED ALL THE PAPERS WERE BEFORE THE ASSESSING O FFICER WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN APPRECIATED. FURTHER DUE TO A DISPUTE BETWEEN THE EARLIER COUNSEL AND THE ASSESSEE, NO REPRESENTATION CAN BE MADE BEF ORE THE LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE HE SUBMITTED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE REMAN DED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RECONSIDERATION. 5 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D.R FOR THE REVENUE R ELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6 ON CONSIDERATION OF RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE MATTER REQUIRES RECONSIDERATION AT THE LEVEL OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PAPER BOOK FILED COPY OF NOTICE ISS UED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND REPLIES SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED COPY OF BANK STATEMENT OF PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS WITHDRAWAL MADE ON DIFFERENT DATES TO MAKE AVAILABILITY OF CASH TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE WITHDRAWALS FROM CITI BANK AND FU RTHER WITHDRAWALS HAVE BEEN MADE FROM PARTNERSHIP FIRM M/S OCEAN SHIP PING AGENCY IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS A PARTNER. THE ASSESSING OF FICER HAS BROUGHT NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE AMOUNT WITHDRAWN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS UTILIZED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ANY OTHER MANNER TH AN THE ONE WHICH WAS REPRESENTED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ONUS LIES ON THE D EPARTMENT TO SHOW THAT THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTED. WE RELY UPON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF PUN JAB & HARYANA IN THE 3 CASE OF SHIV CHARAN DASS V. CIT, 126 ITR 263 (PH). CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, IT APPEARS THAT THE EVIDENCES F URNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE NOT BEEN APPRECIATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE THE MATTER REQUIRES RECONSIDERATION AT THE LEVEL OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRE CTION TO RE-DECIDE THIS ISSUE CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCES FURNISHED BY THE AS SESSEE AS NOTED ABOVE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL GIVE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 7 IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23.9.2014 SD/- SD/- (T.R. SOOD) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 23.9.2014 SURESH COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT/THE C IT(A)/THE DR