The ITO, Ward-8(4), Surat V. Shri Sureshbhai Labhubhai Borad, Surat

ITA 566/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 94238 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 05-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 06-03-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Rejection of books of accounts
• Section: 143(3); 68; 145

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ANIL CHATURVEDI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 566/AHD/2012 (ASS TT. YEAR 2008-09) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 8(4), ROOM NO.418, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MAJURA GATE, SURAT-395001. PAN AIFPB 2234E VS SHRI SURESHBAI L. BO R A D, 101 LALITA SOCIEY, BEHIND KANTARESHWAR MAHADEV TEMPLE, KATARGAM, SURAT-395004. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI PARVEENKUMAR, SR. D.R. RESPONDENT BY NONE. / DATE OF HEARING : 05- 08-2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 11/8/2015 / O R D E R PER ANIL CHATURVEDI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORD ER OF CIT (A)-V, SURAT DATED 28-11-2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. IN THIS CASE, THE NOTICE FIXING THE DATE OF HEAR ING WAS SENT TO ASSESSEE THROUGH REGISTERED A.D. ON 26-6-2015 BUT T HE NOTICE WAS RETURNED UNDELIVERED BY POSTAL AUTHORITIES WITH THE REMARKS LEFT. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED THE NEW ADDRESS. ON THE DATE OF HEARING SINCE NO ONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, TH E APPEAL IS DECIDED EX-PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE AND ON THE BASIS OF MATER IAL ON RECORD. ITA NO 566/AHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 SHRI SURESHBHAI L. BORAD. 2 3. THE RELEVANT FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERI AL ON RECORD ARE AS UNDER. 4. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL STATED TO BE DERIV ING INCOME FROM DIAMOND BROKERAGE. ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INC OME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 ON 16-1-2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,14,630/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THEREAFTER T HE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 VIDE ORDER DATED 16-12- 2010 AND THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS.12,7 8,630/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER, ASSESS EE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A), WHO VIDE ORDER DATED 28-11- 2011 ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE AFORESAID ORDER OF LD. CIT (A), REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND RAISED THE F OLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF R S.11,64,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLA INED CASH DEPOSITS MADE IN BANK ACCOUNTS TREATED AS UNDISCLOS ED INCOME U/S. 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE GEN UINENESS OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT REJECTED BY THE A.O. U/S. 145 OF T HE ACT, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT OF THE CASE. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE L D. CIT (A) BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE A.O. RESTORED. 5. BEFORE US THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH VAR IOUS GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED BUT THE ISSUE IS ONLY WITH RESPECT TO DELETION OF ADDITION OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS. ITA NO 566/AHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 SHRI SURESHBHAI L. BORAD. 3 6. ON THE BASIS OF AIR INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IT WAS NOTICED BY HIM THAT THERE WAS CASH DEPOSITS OF MORE THAN RS.11,64,000/- IN ASSESSEES ICICI BANK ACCOUNT. TH E ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES OF THE DEPOSITS TO WHI CH THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE HAD OBTAINED LOAN OF RS.12 LACS O N 2-7-2007 AND OUT OF WHICH RS.11,50,000/- WAS WITHDRAWN AND WAS DEPOS ITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FOU ND ACCEPTABLE TO THE A.O. AS ON THE BASIS OF PERUSAL OF BALANCE SHEE T HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE LOAN FROM ICICI HAS BEEN USED FOR THE PURP OSE OF PAYMENT OF PURCHASE OF HOUSE AND PURCHASE OF SHARES AND THEREF ORE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN USED TO DEPOSIT CASH IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AND T HEREFORE ACCORDING TO HIM THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS REMAINED UNEXPLA INED. HE ACCORDINGLY REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS U/S.145 AND TREATED THE AMOUNT OF RS.11,64,000/- THAT WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK AS UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS U/S.68 OF THE ACT. AGGRIE VED BY THE ORDER OF A.O. ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A), WHO DELETED THE ADDITION BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- 6. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WEL L AS SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT IS SELF EXPLANATORY AND NEED NOT REQUIRE MORE ELABORAT ION. SO FAR AS THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IS CONCERNED, TH E A.O. SIMPLY WRITES THAT AS THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS IN BANK IS NO T EXPLAINED HENCE, THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS REJECTED. IN MY OPIN ION, IT IS BEYOND MY COMPREHENSION AS TO WHY THE A.O. HAS REJE CTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT U/S. 145(3) BECAUSE THE A.O. HAS N OT EVEN GONE THROUGH THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED ALL THE EVIDENCES OF THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITED IN HI S ICICI BANK ACCOUNT ALONG WITH BANK STATEMENT SHOWING REPAYMENT OF LOAN BY ECS OF RS.18,453/-. HENCE, THE SOURCES OF THE DEPOS ITS STANDS EXPLAINED. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION MADE ON THIS A CCOUNT IS HEREBY DELETED AND THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 7. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A), REVENUE I S NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. BEFORE US THE LD. D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORD ER OF A.O. ITA NO 566/AHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 SHRI SURESHBHAI L. BORAD. 4 8. WE HAVE HEARD LD. DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVES SU BMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT LD. C IT (A) WHILE DELETING THE ADDITION HAS NOTED THAT BEFORE REJECTING THE BO OKS OF ACCOUNTS A.O. HAD NOT EVEN GONE THROUGH THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND HAS FURTHER NOTED THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND BEFORE H IM ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THE EVIDENCES OF SOURCES OF CASH THAT WAS DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THUS THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT STANDS EXPL AINED. BEFORE US THE REVENUE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT (A). IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A). THUS T HE GROUNDS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON TUESDAY, THE 11 TH AUGUST, 2015 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD. DATE:- 11- 08 -2015 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ! / CONCERNED CIT 4. ! () / THE CIT(A), AHMEDABAD 5. $%& '', , )*++ / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. &,- . / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) ! '#$, &' / ITAT, AHMEDABAD ITA NO 566/AHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 SHRI SURESHBHAI L. BORAD. 5 1. DATE OF DICTATION- 5-8-2015 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER : 6-8-2015 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P .S./P.S. - 10-8-2015 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT : 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK : 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 7. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 8. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER