Smt. Archana Gupta, Indore V. ITO 4(5), Indore, Indore

ITA 54/Ind/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9579 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-01-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 30-01-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained investment; Principle of natural justice; Set aside
• Section: 68; 69; 143(3); 142(1); 143(2)

Judgement Text

अपील य अ धकरण, इ दौर यायपीठ, इ दौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Virtual Hearing ITA No.54/Ind/2020 Assessment Year:2014-15 Smt. Archana Gupta Indore बनाम/ Vs. ITO 4(5) Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.AGHPG7786Q Appellant by CA Pranay Goyal, AR Respondent by Shri Amit Soni, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 12.01.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 28.01.2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD: The above captioned appeal at the instance of Assessee is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, (in short ‘CIT(A)’), Indore dated 18.11.2019 which is arising out of the order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961(In short the ‘Act’) dated 30.12.2016 framed by ITO-4(5). Smt. Archana Gupta ITA No.54/Ind/2020 2 The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1.That the appellant order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous on the fact and in law. 2. That, the appellant order passed by the CIT(A) is contrary to the weight of evidence on record, perverse, unjustified and, therefore the additions are liable to be struck down. 3. That the CIT(A) erred not to follow the principal of natural justice as Ld. CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without sufficient opportunity of being heard, as all the notice as stated in the order are not duly served to the assessee. 4. That the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the ld. AO to the tune of Rs.19,00,000/- being unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act, more particularly when no any inquiry was conducted by the ld. AO upon the cash credit of such amount appearing i the book of the assessee. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the ld. AO to the tune of Rs.30,00,000/- being unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act, in spite of the fact that no such investment has been made by the appellant and documentary evidences has been submitted by the appellant so as to prove that such amount is generated only because of bona fide presentation error in the statement of affairs of the appellant. 6.. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, and amend or to modify or before the date of hearing 2. At the outset, Ld. counsel for the assessee requested for not pressing ground nos.1, 2 & 3 and therefore, the same are dismissed as not pressed. 3. Ld. counsel for the assessee also requested for not pressing ground no.4 relating to addition for unexplained cash credit u/s 68 Smt. Archana Gupta ITA No.54/Ind/2020 3 of the Act at Rs.19,00,000/-. Since this ground No.4 has not been pressed same is dismissed as not pressed. 4. The effective ground is ground no.5 which relates to addition for unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act at Rs. 30,00,000/- 5. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the assessee filed e-return of income on 30.03.2015 declaring income of Rs. 9,11,110/-. In the assessment proceeding carried out subsequent to being selected for limited scrutiny under CASS followed by serving of notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act. Ld. AO while examining the balance sheet was not satisfied with the presentation of sum of Rs.30,00,000/- receivable from Mr. Vinod Sharma which was due to be received against sale of property. Since ld. AO failed to find this sum in the balance sheet he made the addition. Though it was contended by the assessee that the said sum has been shown in the schedule of unsecured loans and the said amount has been deducted from the total unsecured loans but the assessee did not find any favour and Ld. AO made the addition was unexplained investment at Rs.30,00,000/- u/s 69 of the Act. This addition has challenged by the assessee before ld. CIT(A) and necessary documents were furnished but again the assessee failed to find any favour. 5. Aggrieved assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. Ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently argued supporting the order of Ld. AO and relying on the submissions made before the Ld. Smt. Archana Gupta ITA No.54/Ind/2020 4 CIT(A) and also referred to the paper book containing 91 pages filed on 27.08.2020 which includes bank statement of the appellant from 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2015 filed in support to prove that due amount receivable from Mr. Vinod Sharma was received in the subsequent year. 7. Per contra, Ld. DR vehemently argued supporting the orders of both lower authorities. 8. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. Through ground no.5 assessee has challenged the finding of Ld. CIT(A) of confirming the addition made for unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act at Rs.30,00,000/-. We notice that in the impugned assessment order Ld. AO observed that there was a entry of receiving Rs. 14, lacs from Mr. Vinod Sharma during the year and a entry of Rs.44 lac to be received during the year Therefore, the effective debit balance of Rs.30,00,000/- should have been reflected in the balance sheet filed by the assessee. Since Ld. AO could not find this debit balance in the balance sheet he made the addition for unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act and further Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the view. 9. We, however, on perusal of the records find that the said sum was receivable from Mr. Vinod Sharma on account of sale of property. Ld. AO has not doubted the genuineness of transaction with Mr. Vinod Sharma and has only doubted that the said sum has not been shown in the balance sheet. However, on perusal of the submission Smt. Archana Gupta ITA No.54/Ind/2020 5 made by the assessee before Ld. AO on 03.09.2016 it is stated that the assessee has filed a list of unsecured loan categorized as “others”. As on 31.03.2014 total unsecured loan taken was Rs. 58,29,333/- and against this sum the amount receivable from Mr. Vinod Sharma i.e. Rs.30,00,000/- was deducted and so the net amount of Rs. 28,29,333/- was shown. Therefore, so far as disclosing of the amount receivable from Mr. Vinod Sharma is concerned the same has been taken care of. 10. We, further find merit in the contention for the ld. counsel for the assessee that initially some funds were received from Mr. Vinod Sharma. While creating the ledger account in the books it was opened under the group of unsecured loan but subsequently some transactions took place and at the year end there was a debit balance in the name of Shri Vinod Sharma but since the account was opened under the group of unsecured loans the same appeared in the list of unsecured loans and net unsecured loans were shown after deducting debit balance of Rs.30,00,000/-. Further we have also examined the facts that in the subsequent year the said amount was duly received from Mr. Vinod Sharma through banking channel. Also the assessee filed revised statement of affairs by correcting the presentation of the amount receivable from Mr. Vinod Sharma. 11. We, therefore, under the given facts and circumstances of the case, are of the considered view that since the assessee has duly explained the debit balance of Rs. 30,00,000/- given to Mr. Vinod Sharma and has also discharged the same in the balance sheet filed Smt. Archana Gupta ITA No.54/Ind/2020 6 before the lower authorities, no addition for unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act was called for. We, therefore, set aside the finding of both the lower authorities and allow ground no.5 raised by assessee. 12. Ground No.6 is general in nature which needs no adjudication. 13. In the result, Appeal of the Assessee in ITANo.54/Ind/2020 is partly allowed. Order pronounced as per Rule 34 of I.T.A.T., Rules 1963 on ... 28.01.2022. Sd/- (MAHAVIR PRASAD) Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Indore; दनांक Dated : 28/01/2022 Patel/PS Copy to: Assessee/AO/Pr. CIT/ CIT (A)/ITAT (DR)/Guard file. By order Assistant Registrar, Indore