SHRI VISHAL KUMAR JAIN, Ujjain V. THE ITO WARD 2(1), Ujjain

ITA 565/IND/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5690 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 29-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 22-07-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA
• Section: 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.NO.565/IND/2015 A.Y. : 2008-09. SHRI VISHAL KUMAR JAIN, ITO, WARD 2(1), UJJAIN VS. UJJAIN APPELLANT RESPONDENT PAN NO. AIDPJ0855F APPELLANTS BY : SHRI SHARAD JAIN, CA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R. A. VERMA, DR O R D E R PER D.T.GARASIA, J.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A),UJJAIN, DATED 25.11.2014 FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2008-09. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER U/S 154 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). DATE OF HEARING : 29 .0 2 .2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29 .0 2 .2016 SHRI VISHAL KUMAR JAIN, UJJAIN VS. ITO, WD. 2(1), U JJAIN I.T.A.NO. 565/IND/2015 A.Y. 2008-09 2 2 2. THE SHORT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE COU RSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE CA SH OF RS. 15,90,330/- WAS DEPOSITED IN ASSESSEES ACCOUNT DUR ING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ON VARIOUS DATES. THE ASSE SSEE HAS TAKEN THE PLEA THAT HE WAS DEPOSITING AND WITHDRAWI NG THE CASH FREQUENTLY FROM THE SAME BANK ACCOUNT. THE AO HAS NOT FOUND ANY OTHER UTILIZATION OF ABOVE CASH WITHDRAWA LS. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE INCOME FROM INTEREST. THEREF ORE, WHEN ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN MONEYLENDING BUSINESS AND EA RNING THE INTEREST INCOME ON THE SAID ADVANCES, THE LD. CIT(A ) CANNOT APPLY 12 % INTEREST ON TOTAL CASH DEPOSIT AND ADDIT ION OF RS. 1,90,839/- WAS WRONGLY CONFIRMED. THE ASSESSEE HAS MOVED THE APPLICATION U/S 154 STATING THAT WHEN THE AO HA S ACCEPTED THE CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK AT RS. 15,90, 330/- AND THE AO HAS ADDED THE ENTIRE CASH OF RS. 15,90,330/- U/S 69 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 3. THE MATTER CARRIED TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. C IT(A) IN HIS ORDER HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITT ED THE CASH FLOW CHART AND THE ASSESSEE WAS ABLE TO PROVE THAT EXCEPT RS. SHRI VISHAL KUMAR JAIN, UJJAIN VS. ITO, WD. 2(1), U JJAIN I.T.A.NO. 565/IND/2015 A.Y. 2008-09 3 3 3,07,125/-, REST OF THE ADVANCE WAS GIVEN FOR HIS B USINESS PURPOSES. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED T HE AMOUNT OF RS. 3,07,125/-. THEREFORE, WHEN THE LD. CIT(A) H AS ACCEPTED THAT THE ADDITION IS CONFIRMED OF RS. 3,07,125/-, T HE CIT(A) HAS ALSO IMPOSED THE INTEREST @ 12 % ON THE CASH DE POSIT. THEREFORE, THAT IS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD. THEREFORE, IT MAY BE DELETED. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER S OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES. LOOKING TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND THAT THE AO HAS VERIFIED THE CASH DEPOSIT I N THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND HE FOUND THAT THE ASSES SEE WAS DOING THE BUSINESS AND HE WAS MAKING THE DEPOSIT AN D WITHDRAWAL FROM THE SAME BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN RS. 3,07,125/-. THEREFORE, IT WAS SUSTA INED BY THE LD. CIT(A). WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO EN HANCED THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,90,839/- ON THE GROUND THAT THE A SSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN MONEYLENDING BUSINESS AND EARNING TH E SHRI VISHAL KUMAR JAIN, UJJAIN VS. ITO, WD. 2(1), U JJAIN I.T.A.NO. 565/IND/2015 A.Y. 2008-09 4 4 INTEREST ON THE ADVANCE MADE AND, THEREFORE, HE HAS CALCULATED THE NET INTEREST ON 12% ON THE CASH DEPOSIT AND HE HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALL THE CO-TERMINUS POWER, WHICH WAS OF AO AND IN THIS APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY INVOKED HIS POWE RS. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS AT LIBERTY TO FILE THE APPEAL AND IT CANNOT BE DECIDED U/S 154 OF THE INCO ME-TAX ACT, 1961. THEREFORE, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMIS SED. THIS ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 TH FEBRUARY, 2016. SD/- (B.C.MEENA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- ( D.T.GARASIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 29 TH FEBRUARY, 2016. CPU*