Smt. Roopal Jaykumar Sheth, Baroda V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-2(3), Baroda

ITA 59/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 76857 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-06-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 04-06-2014
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 10-01-2011
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJNISH K VOHRA

Judgement Text

, , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, AHMEDABAD 0 00 0 0 00 0 , , , , !'# !$ !'# !$ !'# !$ !'# !$0 00 0! !! !0 00 0 %$ %$ %$ %$, , , , &' ( &' ( &' ( &' ( & & & & BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 59/AHD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 SMT. ROOPAL JAYKUMAR SHETH C/O SISCO CLOSURES, 203, PRAKRUTI TOWERS, ELLORA PARK, BARODA. PAN: AHZPS5050L VS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(2) BARODA. )*/ APPELLANT ,-)* / RESPONDENT REVENUE BY : SHRI RAJNISH K. VOHRA, SR. DR ASSESSEE(S) BY : MS. ARTI N. SHAH, AR $'. / 0'/ // / DATE OF HEARING : 04/06/2014 123 / 0' / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20/06/2014 &4 &4 &4 &4/ // / O R D E R PER SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-IV, BARODA DATE D 16.11.2010. 2. THE SOLE GROUND OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS UNDER: THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-IV , BARODA HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE BY CONFIRMING THE ADDITION TO EXTENT OF RS 9,19,499/- U/S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX AC T, 1961 IN RESPECT OF CASH DEPOSITS MADE BY CUSTOMERS OF SISCO PROFILE S MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER. ITA NO. 59/AHD/2011 ROOPAL JAYKUMAR SHETH, BARODA FOR A.Y. 2005-06 - 2 - 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNER IN THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM KNOWN AS SISCO PROFILES. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINS THE SAVINGS ACCOUNT WITH UTI BANK, DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IN WHICH THERE WERE CA SH DEPOSITS ON VARIOUS DATES TOTALLING TO RS 13,62,402/-. THE ASSESSEE EX PLAINED THAT THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS WERE FROM FOUR PARTIES NAMELY (1) UNI TED CORPORATION (2) AESTHETICS, CALICUT (3) KINGSWAY TRADING CORPORATIO N, CHENNAI AND (4) VAT MARKETING, TO WHOM GOODS WERE SOLD BY M/S SISCO PRO FILES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE ABOVE CLAIM OF THE ASS ESSEE IN ABSENCE OF ANY CONFIRMATION OF SUCH PARTIES OR ANY OTHER DOCUMENTA RY EVIDENCE SHOWING DEPOSIT IN THE SAID SAVINGS ACCOUNT WERE AGAINST SA LES MADE BY THE SAID PARTNERSHIP FIRM. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS 13,62,402/- TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS DEPOSITS FROM UNEXPLAINED SOURCES. 4. ON APPEAL, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPE ALS) DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS 4,42,903/- AS HE FOUND THAT M/S UNITED CORPORATION HAVE CONFIRMED THE DEPOSIT OF SAID CASH IN THE ASSESSEE S BANK ACCOUNT TOWARDS SALE OF GOODS BY SISCO PROFILES. 5. IN RESPECT OF TWO PARTIES NAMELY AESTHETICS AND KINGSWAY CORPORATION, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) OBSERVED THAT THE DEPOSITS FROM THESE PARTIES CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS S ALE PROCEEDS OF SISCO PROFILES IN ABSENCE OF CONFIRMATION FROM THEM IN TH IS RESPECT. 6. REGARDING VAT MARKETING, THE COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX (APPEALS) OBSERVED THAT THOUGH THE SAID PARTY HAS C ONFIRMED OF MAKING PAYMENT IN CASH TOWARDS SALE FROM SISCO PROFILES, B UT IN ABSENCE OF TALLYING OF DATE AND AMOUNT FROM THE PAYMENT MADE BY VAT MAR KETING WITH THE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT, THE EXPLAN ATION OF THE ASSESSEE ITA NO. 59/AHD/2011 ROOPAL JAYKUMAR SHETH, BARODA FOR A.Y. 2005-06 - 3 - CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. THEREFORE, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO RS 9,19,499/- OUT OF RS 13,62,402/-. 7. AGAINST THIS CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS 9,1 9,499/-, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 8. THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE S UBMITTED BEFORE US THAT NO PROPER OPPORTUNITY WAS ALLOWED TO THE AS SESSEE TO PRODUCE CONFIRMATION OF THE TWO PARTIES AND TO RECONCILE AL LEGED DIFFERENCE IN THE ACCOUNT OF VAT MARKETING. HE PRAYED THAT THE ISSUE BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION, TO WH ICH THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE MADE NO OBJECTION. 9. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ON THIS ISSUE AND REMAND THE M ATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ADJUDICATION AFRESH AS PER LAW AFTER ALLOWING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON FRIDAY, THE 20 TH OF JUNE, 2014 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (G.C. GUPTA) VICE PRESIDENT ( N.S. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 20/06/2014 GHANSHYAM MAURYA, SR. P.S.