RAMRICHPAL R. AGARWAL HUF, MUMBAI V. ITO 14(1)4, MUMBAI

ITA 580/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9130 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-12-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 10-12-2012
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 20-01-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

. , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC , BENCH MUMBAI , BEFORE SHRI R.K.GUPTA , J M ITA NO. 580 / MUM/ 20 1 1 ( ASSESSMENT YE AR : 200 7 - 20 0 8 ) RAMRICHPAL R. AGARWAL HUF, 33.37, DWARKEKSH MARKET, 3 RD FLOOR, DR.ATMARAM MERCHANT ROAD, MUMBAI - 400 002 . VS. ITO 1 4 ( 1 )( 4 ) , MUMBAI PAN/GIR NO. : A A EHR 0677 Q ( APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) /A SSESSEE BY : NONE /RE VENUE BY : MR. RAKESH RANJAN DATE OF HEARING : 10 TH DEC ., 2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14 TH DEC. ,2012 O R D E R THIS IS A N APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 1 - 11 - 2010 OF LEANED CIT(A) - 25 , MUMBAI RELA TING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 7 - 0 8 . 2 . THE ONLY ISSUE IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST NOT ACCEPTING THE SALE OF CAR AND TREATING THE SALE CONSID ERATION AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITOR UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT BY MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS. 1,46,880/ - . ITA NO. 580 /20 1 1 2 3 . DURING THE ASSESSMENT, THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE SOLD A MOTOR CAR FOR RS. 1,50,000/ - AND OFFERED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 3,120/ - AS INCOME FOR TAXATION. THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FILE A COPY OF SALE OF CAR RECEIPT AND FULL ADDRESS OF THE PURCHASER. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD TO ONE MR. ALTAP MOHD. HUSSSAIN, A RESIDENT OF BHIVANDI AND THE PAYMENT HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY CHEQUE. HOWEVER, THE FULL ADDRESS COULD NOT BE PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE OF THE PURCHASER. THE AO MADE ENQUIRY FROM THE BANK AND FOUND THAT THERE IS NO BANK ACCOUNT IN THE NAME OF MR. ALTAP MOHD. HUSSAIN, WHO ISSUED THE CHEQUE. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE WAS INFORMED ABOUT THE FACT WHO VIDE LETTER DATED 27 - 11 - 2009 SUBMITTED THAT, IN FACT, HE HAS SOLD THE CAR TO MR. NAIM S. LOKHANDWALA THROUGH MR. ALTAP MOHD. HUSSAIN AND DELIVERY NOTE OF CAR CONTAINING PAN NO. AND MOBILE NO. OF BUYER WAS ALSO FILED. THE AO NOTE D THAT THE ASSESSEE IS TAKING DIFFERENT STANDS AT DIFFERENT POINT OF TIME. THEREFORE, HE ADDED THE ENTIRE SALE CONSIDERATION ON ACCOUNT OF CAR AT RS. 1,50,000/ - . THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY SHOWN AN AMOUNT OF RS. 3,120/ - AND THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS. 1,46,000/ - OR ODD WAS ADDED 4 . LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ALSO CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5 . AFTER CONSIDERING THE ORDER S OF THE AS SESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A) , ON WHICH RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED BY THE LEARNED DR AND CONSIDERING THE OTHER MATERIAL AND EVIDENCES PLACED ON RECORD FILED ITA NO. 580 /20 1 1 3 BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, I FOUND THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING A CAR AS THE SAME HAS BEEN SHOWN AND THE SAME CAR HAS BEEN SOLD DURING THE YEAR, HOWEVER, THE ASSESS EE COULD NOT FILE COMPLETE INFORMATION IN RESPECT TO CAR BUYER. THEREFORE, AN ADVERSE INFERENCE WAS DRAWN BY THE AO. IT IS NOTICED THAT SALE CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN RECEIVED THROUGH CHEQUE. THE ASSESSEE HAS PROVIDED THE DETAILS OF CHEQUE, PAN NUMBER OF THE BUYER, HOWEVER, THE AO HAS NOT MADE ANY ENQUIRY IN RESPECT OF THE BUYER I.E. MR. NAIM S. LOKHANDWALA . DUE TO MISTAKE, THE ASSESSEE INFORMED THE AO THAT HE HAS SOLD THE CAR TO ONE MR. ALTAP MOHD. HUSSAIN , WHEREAS, IN FACT, THE CAR WAS SOLD TO MR. NAIM S. LO KHANDWALA , WHOSE PAN NUMBER AND MOBILE NUMBER WAS PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS ALSO A DELIVERY NOTE, COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE 21. THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF MR. NAIM S. LOKHANDWALA IS MENTIONED. EVEN THE CAR NUMBER, MODEL AND CHASSIS NUMBER IS ME NTIONED IN THAT DELIVERY NOTE. COPY OF PAN NO. IS PLACED AT PAGE 22, WHICH RELATES TO MR. NAIM S. LOKHANDWALA . COPY OF BALANCESHEET IS PLACED AT PAGE 23, CAR IS SHOWN AND IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, SINCE THE CAR WAS SOLD, THEREFORE, THE SAME IS NOT A PPEARING IN THE BALANCE SHEET. 6 . IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT HAVING ANY CAR. THE AO HAS ALSO NOT DOUBTED IN RE GARD TO THE FACT THAT THERE IS CAR OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE. ONLY T HE NAME OF THE PERSON AND ADDRESS COULD NOT BE ITA NO. 580 /20 1 1 4 GIVEN ORIGINALLY, HOWEVER, ALL THE DETAILS WERE PROVIDED TO THE AO AT A LATER STAGE. THE AO HAS NOT MADE ANY ENQUIRY IN RESPECT TO THE DETAIL PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE. SINCE ALL THE DETAILS ARE PLACED ON REC ORD, THE PAYMENT HAS BEEN RECEIVED THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE, DELIVERY NOTE AS WELL AS OTHER PARTICULARS ARE ALSO AVAILABLE IN THE FILE, THEREFORE, I FEEL THAT ADDITION MADE AND SUSTAINED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE NOT CORRECT. ACCORDINGLY, THE AMOUNT OF ADDITION MADE AND SUSTAINED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IS HEREBY DELETED. 7 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 14 TH DAY OF DEC. 2012. 2012 SD/ - ( ) ( R.K.GUPT A ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 14 /12 / 2012 . /PKM , PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / THE CIT(A) - X, MUMBAI. 4. / CIT 5. / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) / ITAT, MUMBAI