Pinaki Ranjan Mondal, Kolkata V. ITO, WD-55(3), KOLKATA, Kolkata

ITA 514/KOL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 100233 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-12-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 05-05-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJENDRA PRASAD
• Assessee Lawyers: GIRISH SHARMA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC B BENC H: KOLKATA [BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM] I.T.A NO.514 & 515/KOL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2002-03 & 2003-04 PINAKI RANJAN MONDAL, L/R OF LATE VS. INCOME-TAX O FFICER, WD-52(4), KOLKATA RAM PADA MONDAL (PAN: AEFPM6147M) ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) DATE OF HEARING: 07.12.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 11.12.2015 FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI GIRISH SHARMA, FCA FOR THE RESPONDENT: SHRI RAJENDRA PRASAD, JCIT, SR. DR ORDER BOTH THESE APPEALS BY ASSESSEE ARE ARISING OUT OF S EPARATE ORDERS OF CIT(A)-19, KOLKATA VIDE APPEAL NOS. 32 & 31/CIT(A)-19/KOL/WD-6 2(2)/2014-15 DATED 25.02.2015. ASSESSMENTS WERE FRAMED BY ITO, WD-19( 4), KOLKATA U/S. 143(3)/147 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO A S THE ACT) FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 AND 2003-04 VIDE HIS SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 16.12.2009. 2. THE ONLY COMMON ISSUE IN THESE TWO APPEALS OF AS SESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF CASH DEPOSIT INTO BANK OF RS.3,55,000/- IN AY 2002- 03 AND RS.2,95,000/- IN AY 2003-04. 3. I HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. I FIND THAT THE AO IN BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YE ARS NOTICED FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT THAT THERE IS A DEPOSIT OF CASH AMOUNTING TO RS.3,55,000 /- IN AY 2002-03 AND RS.2,95,000/- IN AY 2003-04. ACCORDING TO HIM, AS THE ASSESSEE C OULD NOT EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT, HE MADE ADDITIONS. THE CIT(A) ALSO CONFIR MED THE ACTION OF AO DESPITE THE FACT THAT COMPLETE CASH FLOW STATEMENT INCLUDING TH E DEPOSITS MADE DURING THE YEAR WERE EXPLAINED BY POSITIVE AVAILABILITY OF CASH IN THE C ASH FLOW STATEMENT DESPITE THE FACT THAT OPENING BALANCE, WHICH IS NOT NEEDED TO PROVE THE C ASH FLOW. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW MY ATTENTION TO PARA 5.1 WHEREIN THE AOS REMAND REPORT DATED 04.08.2014 IS REPRODUCED AS IT IS AS UNDER: 5.1. AS DIRECTED, THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN OPPORTUN ITY OF BEING HEARD. SRI GIRISH SHARMA, CA/AR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED AND STATED THE FACTS IN SUPPORT OF HIS 2 ITA NOS.514 & 515/K/2015 PINAKI RANJAN MONDAL AY 2002-03 & 2003-04 SUBMISSIONS. THE A/R CLARIFIED THE CASH FLOW STATE MENT FROM 01.04.1993 TO 31.03.2002 WITH SUPPORTING COPIES OF POST OFFICE PASS BOOK AND BANK STATEMENTS WHICH IS FOUND IN ORDER. BUT THE OPENING BALANCE AS ON 01.04.1993 IS REMAINED UNEXPLAINED. 4. SIMILARLY, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW MY ATTENTION TO PARA 5.2 OF CIT(A)S ORDER WHEREIN EXCEPT THE OPENING CASH BALANCE OF RS .1,59,991/-, ALL DEPOSITS WERE ACCEPTED AS EXPLAINED AND THE RELEVANT FINDING OF P ARA 5.2 READS AS UNDER: 5.2. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, TH E APPELLANTS SUBMISSIONS AND THE REMAND REPORT. ON THE BASIS OF SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS LIKE BANK, STATEMENTS/PASSBOOKS, POST OFFICE MIS STATEMENTS ETC., THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND TH E CASH FLOW STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE AR AT THE REMAND STAGE CORRECT EXCEPT FOR THE OPENI NG CASH BALANCE OF RS.1,59,991 WHICH REMAINED UNEXPLAINED. I FIND THAT THE APPELLANT DE POSITED RS.5000 ON 16.01.2002, RS.3,50,000/- ON 04.03.2002 AND RS.2,95,000/- ON 07 .05.2002 AND THESE DEPOSITS AGGREGATING TO RS.6,50,000 ARE SOUGHT TO BE EXPLAIN ED AS ACCUMULATION OF OLD CASH BALANCE OF RS.159991 AVAILABLE ON 01.04.1993, PERIO DIC WITHDRAWALS OUT OF BANK ACCOUNTS/MATURITY OF FIXED DEPOSITS/MATURITY OF PO ST OFFICE MIS SCHEMES AND INTEREST RECEIVED IN CASH ON POST OFFICE MIS BUT A RELEVANT ITEM OF CASH OUTFLOW CONSPICUOUS BY ITS ABSENCE IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT FURNISHED BY THE AR IS REASONABLE DRAWINGS FOR PERSONAL OR HOUSEHOLD USE. 5. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE ME STATED TH AT EVEN THOUGH IF I TAKE OUT OPENING CASH BALANCE IN BOTH THE YEARS, THERE ARE P OSITIVE CASH AVAILABLE FOR MAKING THESE DEPOSITS. WHEN A QUERY WAS PUT TO LD. SR. DR , HE COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE ARGUMENT OF LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. I HAVE G ONE THROUGH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND FIND THAT THERE IS A POSITIVE CASH AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT, WHICH IS ENCLO SED IN ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK IN ADDITION TO OPENING CASH BALANCE. IN VIEW OF THE A BOVE, I FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE AVAILABILITY OF CASH WHICH WAS DEPOSITE D IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. SIMILAR ARE THE FACTS IN AY 2003-04 ALSO. HENCE TAKING A CONSISTEN T VIEW, I ALLOW BOTH THE APPEALS OF ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 7. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11.12.2 015. SD/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 11TH DECEMBER, 2015 JD.(SR.P.S.) 3 ITA NOS.514 & 515/K/2015 PINAKI RANJAN MONDAL AY 2002-03 & 2003-04 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT SHRI PINAKI RANJAN MONDAL, L/R OF L T. RAM PADA MONDAL, FLAT 1DL, 625A, DIAMOND HARBOUR ROAD, KOLKA TA-700 034.. 2 RESPONDENT ITO, WD-55(3), KOLKATA. 3. THE CIT(A), KOLKATA 4. 5. CIT , KOLKATA DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA / TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, ASSTT. REGISTRAR .