The ACIT, 2(1), Bhopal V. Smt. Versha Taksande, Bhopal

ITA 599/IND/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2976 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-05-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 17-12-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R R MEENA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 599/IND/2012 A.Y.2008-09 ACIT-2(1), BHOPAL :: APPLICANT VS SMT. VARSHA TAKSANDE, BHOPAL PAN ABTPT 9409 L :: RESPONDENT REVENUE BY SHRI R.R. MEENA ASSESSEE BY SHRI ASHISH GOYAL DATE OF HEARING 10.5.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 10.5.2013 O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER THE ONLY GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS THAT THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY ERRED IN DELETING OF ADDITION R S.15,09,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CREDITS. THE CRUX OF ARGUMENTS 2 ADVANCED BY SHRI R.R. MEENA, LD. SR. DR IS THAT THE NECESSARY DETAILS OF CASH DEPOSITS WERE NOT FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND EVEN THE SOURCE OF SUCH DEPOSITS WAS NOT FURNISHED, THUS, THE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.15,09,000/- WAS RIGHTLY TREATED AS UN EXPLAINED CREDITS U/S 68 OF THE ACT, WHICH WAS ADDED TO HER INCOME. O N THE OTHER HAND, SHRI ASHISH GOYAL, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE CONTENDED THAT NECESSARY DETAILS WERE FURNISHED. 2. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE FACTS, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL, SHOWED INCOME FROM SALAR Y IN HER RETURN, DECLARING INCOME OF RS.7,59,485/-. WE FIND THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, EVEN THERE IS NO WHISPER ABOUT SALE OF RESID ENTIAL FLATS AS HAS BEEN CLAIMED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E. BEFORE US, IT WAS CLAIMED THAT THE HOUSE AT BHOPAL WAS SOLD FOR R S.25.50 LACS AND THE CONSIDERATION WAS PAID. THE LD. CIT(A) MERE LY CONCLUDED THAT THE CASH DEPOSIT BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE BANK A CCOUNT WAS NOTHING BUT THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE HOUSE PRO PERTY. FROM THE RECORD, THESE FACTS ARE NOT OOZING OUT. IT APPEARS THAT AGREEMENT TO SALE DATED 5 TH JANUARY, 2008 INDICATING SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.25.50 LACS, WAS FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) FOR THE FIRST TIME. WHEREAS LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO REFERRED TO REGISTERED SALE DEED INDICATING SALE OF HOUSE FOR CONSIDERATION OF RS.10 .50 LACS. NO REASON WAS ASSIGNED FOR DIFFERENT SALE CONSIDERATIO N IN RESPECT OF 3 VERY SAME PROPERTY. EVEN AS PER THE AGREEMENT, THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN MENTIONED AS PAYABLE. THE ASSESSEE ACTUALLY RE CEIVED THE AMOUNT OR NOT AND ALSO THE MODE OF THE PAYMENT IS N OT BORNE OUT OF THE FACTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN CONTRAVENTION OF RULE 46A, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ACCEPTED ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS FILED BEFO RE HIM WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, NOR ANY REMAND REPORT WAS SOUGHT FOR. KEEPING IN VIEW THE TOTALITY OF FACTS, WE REMAND THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFI CER TO EXAMINE THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE SO URCE OF DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT, FOR WHICH, THE ASSESSEE BE PROVID ED OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING WITH FURTHER LIBERTY TO FURNISH EVIDENCE , IF ANY, IN SUPPORT OF HER CLAIM. THIS APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICA L PURPOSES ONLY. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN T HE PRESENCE OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOTH SIDES AT THE CONCL USION OF THE HEARING ON 10.5.2013. SD SD (R.C.SHARMA) (JOGINDER SINGH ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL ME MBER DATED: 10.5.2013 COPY TO: APPELLANT, RESPONDENT, CIT, CIT(A), DR, GU ARD FILE !VYS!