Shri Mallikarjune H. S., Gokak V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Gokak., Gokak

ITA 50/PAN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 93605 (ITAT-PANAJI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 28-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 05-02-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S NATARAJ LD

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 50/PNJ/2015 : (A.Y 2009 - 10) MALLIKARJUN H.S R.S. NO. 177/3, P/NO. 5, VIDHYA NAGAR EXTENSION, GOKAK PAN : ADBPM6725E (APPELLANT) VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, GOKAK (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : PRAMOD Y. VAIDYA, ADV. REVENUE BY : S. NATARAJ, LD. DR DATE OF HEARING : 28/07/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28/07/2015 O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN : 1. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), BELGAUM IN ITA NO. 163/BGM/2011 - 12 DT. 3.11.2014 FOR A.Y 2009 - 10. SHRI PRAMOD Y. VAIDYA, ADVOCATE REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI S. NATARAJ, LD. DR REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. 2. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DELAYED BY 17 DAYS FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CONDONATION PETITION. THE LD. DR HAS NOT OBJECTED TO THE CONDONATION OF THE DELAY. CONSEQUENTLY, THE DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL STANDS CONDONED AND THE APPEAL DISPOSED OFF ON MERITS. 2 ITA NO. 50/PNJ/2015 (A.Y : 2009 - 10) 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR THAT IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING SUBSTANTIAL CASH DEPO SITS IN CORPORATION BANK, GOKAK. THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS WERE OUT OF EARLIER WITHDRAWALS. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HAD CONSEQUENTLY TREATED THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED MONE Y OF THE ASSESSEE AND HAD BROUGHT THE SAME TO TAX. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) HAD CONFIRMED THE SAID ADDITION. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN LIC DEVELOPMENT OFFICER. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS RECEIVING VARIOUS AMOUNTS WH ICH HAD BEEN GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO HIS FRIENDS AND RELATIVES IN CASH FROM THE EARLIER WITHDRAWALS AND THE SAME WAS DEPOSITED IN CASH IN THE ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO WITHDRAWING CASH FROM THE SAID BANK AC COUNT AND HE USED TO HELP HIS RELATIVES AND FRIENDS WHENEVER THEY REQUIRED CASH. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS BEING OUT OF EARLIER CASH WITHDRAWALS, NO ADDITION WAS CALLED FOR IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. IN REPLY, THE LD. DR VEHEME NTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO AND LD. CIT(A). 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. ON A SPECIFIC QUERY TO THE LD. AR AS TO LINKING OF THE CASH WITHDRAWALS EARLIER MADE WITH THE CASH DEPOSITS, THE LD. AR WAS UNABLE TO LINK THE TRANSACTIONS SPECIFICALLY. IT WAS ONLY A GENERAL STATEMENT MADE THAT THE CASH WITHDRAW N EARLIER WAS USED FOR MAKING THE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. CONSEQUENTLY, THE LD. AR WAS DIRECTED TO PRODUCE THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE. A PERUSAL OF THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT HAVE NECESSARY WITHDRAWAL FOR MAKING THE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. IN ANY CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO SPECIFICALLY SHOW AS TO HOW HIS EARLIER 3 ITA NO. 50/PNJ/2015 (A.Y : 2009 - 10) WITHDRAWALS WERE UTILIZED OR KEPT IN THE FORM OF CASH FOR RE - DEPOSITING IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. CONSEQUENTLY, IT IS DIRECTED THAT THE PEAK CASH CREDIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT IS TO BE TAXED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS PEAK CASH CREDIT IS FOUND IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT ON 14.8.2008 AT RS. 18,62,500/ - . CONSEQUENTLY, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO, AND AS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) OF AN AMOUNT OF RS.23,31,600/ - STANDS REDUCED TO RS. 18,62,500/ - REPRESENTING THE PEAK OF THE CASH CREDIT IN THE CASH FLOW OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28/07/2015. S D / - (N.S. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER S D / - ( GEORGE MATHAN ) JUDICIAL MEMBER PLACE : PANAJI / GOA DATED : 28/07/ 201 5 *SSL* COPY TO : (1) APPELLANT (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT(A) CONCERNED (4) CIT CONCERNED (5) D.R (6) GUARD FILE TRUE COPY, BY ORDER , 4 ITA NO. 50/PNJ/2015 (A.Y : 2009 - 10) DATE INITIAL ORIGINAL DICTATION PAD & DRAFT ORDER ARE ENCLOSED IN THE FILE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 28/07/2015 SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 28/07/2015 SR.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 2 9 /07/2015 JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER 2 9 /07/2015 JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 2 9 /07/2015 SR.PS 6. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 28/07/2015 SR.PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 2 9 /07/2015 SR.PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER