MR. GIRIRAJ MAHESHWARI, Vidisha V. The ITO, Vidisha

ITA 591/IND/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 59122714 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-12-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 10-09-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R R MEENA
• Assessee Lawyers: N D PATWA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Peak credit
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

GIRIRAJ MAHESHWARI ITA NOS. 590 & 591/IND/2014 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C. MEENA, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 590 & 591/IND/2014 A.YS. 2009-10 & 2010-11 GIRIRAJ MAHESHWARI VIDISHA ::: APPELLANT VS INCOME TAX OFFICER VIDISHA ::: RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY SHRI ASHISH GOYAL AND SHRI N.D. PATWA RESPONDENT BY SHRI R.R. MEENA DATE OF HEARING 3.11.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 7 .12.2015 O R D E R PER SHRI B.C. MEENA, AM THESE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE EMANATE FROM THE ORDERS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A), BHOPAL, BOTH DATED 21.7.2014. GIRIRAJ MAHESHWARI ITA NOS. 590 & 591/IND/2014 2 2. IN BOTH THESE APPEALS THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE SUBSTANTIVE GROUND THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE AMOUNTS OF RS.15,43,00 0/- IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 AND RS.20,31,893/- IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT SHOULD BE ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT WITHOUT GRANTING BENEFIT OF PE AK CREDIT METHOD TO THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL WORKING AS MANAGING DIRECTOR OF RMP MARKETING BUSINESS COMPANY PVT. LTD. RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED DECLARING INCOME AT RS. 1,68,040/- IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITIONS OF RS.15,43,000/- AND OF RS . 20,31,853/- IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 AND 2010- 11, RESPECTIVELY, U/S 68 OF THE ACT BEING CASH DEPOS ITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS. 15,43,000/- IN THE GIRIRAJ MAHESHWARI ITA NOS. 590 & 591/IND/2014 3 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ABLE TO SHOW THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACC OUNT. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DECLARED SUCH BANK ACCOUNT IN EARLIE R PART OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ABLE TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF OPENING BALANCE OF RS. 2,13,028/- AND THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ABLE TO PROVE THAT THE DEPOSITS IN HIS BANK ACCOUNTS WERE OUT OF PAST SAVING S WHICH WAS WITHDRAWAL OF LAND TRANSACTIONS AND THE LEARNE D CIT(A) DID NOT GRANT BENEFIT OF PEAK CREDIT METHOD. T HE LEARNED CIT(A) ALSO CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.20,31,853/- FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO SHOW THE SOURCE OF BANK ACCOUNT AND SUCH BANK ACCOUNT WAS NOT DECLARED IN EARLIER PART OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO PROVE THAT THE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT ARE PERTAIN ING TO THE PAST SAVINGS WHICH IS WITHDRAWN FOR LAND TRANSACT ION BUT DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WHEN THE TRANSACTION GIRIRAJ MAHESHWARI ITA NOS. 590 & 591/IND/2014 4 WAS NOT MATERIALISED AND THAT THE AMOUNT WAS COLLECTED FROM THE RESIDENTS OF THE COLONY FOR PAYMENT OF THE SAME TO VARIOUS GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES AND THE BENEFIT OF PEAK CREDIT WAS ALSO DENIED. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES. THE ASSESSEE WAS MAINTAINING BANK ACCOUNT WITH JILA SAHKARI KENDRA MARYADIT BANK AND THIS BANK ACCOUNT WAS NOT DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THIS ACCOUNT WAS IN THE JOINT NAME WITH HIS WIFE. THEREFORE , IT WAS NOT MENTIONED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. IT WAS ALS O PLEADED THAT THIS ACCOUNT WAS IN OPERATION FOR TWO/THREE YEARS AND AN AMOUNT OF RS. 6200/- WAS ACCUMULATED IN THIS ACCOUNT AND THE SAME WAS WITHDRAWN FOR THE PURCHASE OF LAND AND WHEN THE DEAL COULD NOT BE MATERIALISED, THE SAME AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK. THERE IS NO DENYING THE FACT THAT THERE WAS CASH DEPOSIT DURING TH E RELEVANT PERIOD AND THERE WERE WITHDRAWALS ALSO. THE FAC TS GIRIRAJ MAHESHWARI ITA NOS. 590 & 591/IND/2014 5 GATHERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LEARNED CIT (A) ARE NOT SUFFICIENT TO REACH THE CONCLUSION THAT THE H OLDER OF THE CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT REPRESENT THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR CONSIDERE D VIEW, MORE FACTS ARE REQUIRED TO ARRIVE AT A JUDICIOUS DECISION WITH RESPECT TO THE CASH DEPOSITED IN THE B ANK ACCOUNT IN BOTH THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY, WE REMAND THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE SAME DE NOVO AFTER PROVIDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSE E. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE STAND ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 7TH DECEMBER, 2015 SD SD (D.T. GARASIA) (B.C. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 7 TH DECEMBER, 2015 GIRIRAJ MAHESHWARI ITA NOS. 590 & 591/IND/2014 6 DN/-