M/S. BHUPINDERSINGH DOGRA, MUMBAI V. THE ITO WD 24(1)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 6170/MUM/2007

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1290 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-06-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 09-03-2015
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 05-10-2007
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S S RANA; R S RAWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: D D JIMULIA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Residential status

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, B, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI P.M.JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 6170/MUM/2007 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2003-04) BHUPINDERSINGH DOGRA 101, ABHIJAT CHS LTD. MHADA NO.8 MALWANI, MALAD(W), MUMBAI-400095 .APPELLANT PAN : AFUPD9606G V/S INCOME TAX OFFICER 24(1)(3), MUMBAI. RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI D D JIMULIA RESPONDENT BY : S/SHRI R S RAWAL AND S S RANA O R D E R PER VIJAY PAL RAO,JM THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED 08.08.2007 OF CIT(A)-XXIV, MUMBAI FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. 2 THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUN DS : 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE AO WHEREIN THE AO HAS HELD THE RESIDENTIAL STATUS OF THE APPELLANT TO BE A RESIDE NT OF INDIA. ITA NO. 6170/MUM/2007 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2003-04) 2 2 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS TO THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT OF RS.6,62,822 EVEN THOUGH THE SAID DEPOSITS WERE FULL Y EXPLAINED AND OUT OF THE ABOVE, RS.8822 RELATED TO BANK INTEREST ON NRE ACCOUNT WHICH IS EXEMPT FROM TAX AND HENCE WAS NOT CONSIDERED IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME; 3. GROUND NO.1 REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE . AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LEARNED AR HAS SUBMITTE D THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT PRESS GROUND NO.1 AND THE SAM E MAY BE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESS. 4. THE LD. DR HAS NO OBJECTION, IF THE SAID GROUND IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. ACCORDINGLY, WE DISMISS THE GROUND NO.1 BEING NOT PRESSED. 5. GROUND NO.2 REGARDING ADDITION TOWARDS UNEXPLAIN ED CASH DEPOSITS MADE IN BANK UNDER SECTION 68. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT THE AO NOTICED FRO M THE BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH HD FC BANK, LOKHANDWALA BRANCH, MUMBAI THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE VARIOUS DEPOSITS IN TWO ACCOUNTS BEARING ACCOU NT NO.1591060000117 AND 15910101000067. IN ACCOUNT NO . 1591060000117, THE TOTAL DEPOSITS MADE DURING THE YEAR WERE RS.22271127/- AND RS.3263000 WAS DEPOSITED IN ACCOU NT NO. 15910101000067. THE AO MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.2,25,34,127 (AFTER REDUCING ) RS.30,00,000 WHICH HAS BEEN ITA NO. 6170/MUM/2007 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2003-04) 3 TAXED SEPARATELY) BY TREATING THE SAME UNEXPLAINED CREDIT U/S 68. 6. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE MAJOR POR TION OF THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.2,18,71,305/- AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.6,62,822/- ON THE GROUND THAT ALL THESE DEPOSITS COULD NOT BE EXPLAINED BY THE AS SESSEE EITHER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT OR BEFORE TH E APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 7. BEFORE US, THE MAIN CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED A R OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FULLY EXPLAINED T HE DEPOSITS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.6,62,822/- OUT OF WHICH RS.8,82 2/- RELATES TO THE BANK INTEREST AND NRE ACCOUNT WHICH IS EXEM PT FROM THE TAX AND HENCE WAS NOT CONSIDERED FOR COMPUTATI ON OF INCOME. HE HAS REFERRED THE REMAND REPORT AT PAGE 9 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS GIVEN COMM ENT IN THE REPORT ITSELF WHEN APPRECIATING THE EXPLANATIO N AND SOURCE OF THE DEPOSITS. THE LEARNED AR HAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING OPENING BALANCE OF CASH OF RS.5,38,040/- AS PER THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.03 .2002, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING SUFFICIENT SOURC E OF FUND TO DEPOSIT IN THE BANK. ITA NO. 6170/MUM/2007 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2003-04) 4 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DR REITERATED THE FACTS AS SUBMITTED BY THE AO BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND REMAND REPORT. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT CONTENTIONS. W E HAVE GONE CAREFULLY THROUGH THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO IN WHICH THE AO HAS ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSE E AS FOUND CORRECT TO THE EXTENT IT IS SUPPORTED BY THE DOCUMENTS. AS REGARDS THE AMOUNT OF RS.6,62,822, IT COMPRISES THE DEPOSITS MADE ON 8 OCCASIONS. FROM THE REMAND REPOR T IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY SATISFA CTORY EXPLANATION OF THE SOURCES OF FUNDS DEPOSITED IN TH E BANK. THE PLEA RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US DOES NOT FIND PLACE EITHER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, REMAND RE PORT OR APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT RECORD PROPERLY AND FAIRLY AND THUS THE FINDING OF CIT(A) NEEDS NO INTERFERENCE. ACCORDI NGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT OR SUBSTANCE IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED AR. 10. AS REGARD NRE ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT TAK EN ANY PLEA BEFORE ANY OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE IS SUE REGARDING STATUS OF ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DISMISSED. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE SAID PLEA. THIS GRO UND IS REJECTED AND THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS UPHELD QUA THIS ISSUE. ITA NO. 6170/MUM/2007 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2003-04) 5 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMIS SED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25,06.2010 SD SD (P.M.JAGTAP) (VIJAY PAL RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMB ER MUMBAI, DATED 25 TH JUNE 2010 SRL:23610 COPY TO: 1. BHUPINDERSINGH DOGRA 101, ABHIJAT CHS LTD. MHADA NO.8 MALWANI, MALAD(W), MUMBAI-400095 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER 24(1)(3), MUMBAI. 3.CIT -24, MUMBAI. 4.CIT (A)-XXIV, MUMBAI. 6. DR B BENCH BY ORDER TRUE COPY ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI