PARESH D. PANCHAMIA HUF, MUMBAI V. ITO 22(1)-4, MUMBAI

ITA 6287/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 100785 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 19-05-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 12-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B S BIST
• Assessee Lawyers: VINIT D GADA
• Keywords: Business income
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R. C. SHARMA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO. 6287/MUM/2012 ( / ASSESSME NT YEAR: 2006 - 07 ) PARESH D. PANCHAMIA HUF 5/6, BHAVESHWAR SHIKAR, R. B. MEHTA ROAD, GHATKOPAR (E), MUMBAI - 400 077 / VS. ITO 22(1) - 4 MUMBAI ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. AAIHP 4060 K ( / APPELLANT ) : ( / RESPONDEN T ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI VINIT D. GADA / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI B. S. BIST / DATE OF HEARING : 12.08.2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19 .08.2015 / O R D E R PER R. C. SHARMA , A. M.: THIS IS AN A PPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE O RDER BY THE LD. CIT(A) - 33 , MUMBAI DATED 31.07.2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (A.Y.) 2006 - 07 . W HEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1) LD. CI T (A) FAILED IN CONFIRMING ACTION OF ASS ESSING OFFICER TAXING CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.2,87,100/ - AS U NEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U /S. 68 OF THE IT ACT, 1961. 2 ITA NO . 6287/MUM/2012 (A.Y. 2006 - 07) PARESH D. PANCHAMIA HUF VS. ITO 2) LD. CI T(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT WERE OUT OF OPENING CASH BALANCE OF RS. 1,56,670/ - AND OPENING RECEIVABLE OF RS. 18, 400/ - . 3) L D. CIT(A) FURTHER FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE OPENING CASH BALANCE AND RECEIVABLE WERE NOT CHALLENGED AND WERE NOT BAD IN LAW ON THE BASIS OF FACTS. 4) L D. C I T(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT CASH DEPOSIT WERE FROM BUSINESS RECEIPTS OF THE APPELLANT AND SAME WAS SHOWN IN CASH BOOK AND OFFERED TO TAX IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. 5) THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE RIGHT TO LEAVE, TO AMEND, TO ALTER OR TO DELETE ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS. 2. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN HEARD AND RECORD PERUSED. FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS DOING THE BUSINESS OF CLEANING AND WASHING AND RECONDITIONING OF OLD EMPTY BARREL OF DRUMS/TINS. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS DONE BUSINESS WITH MORE THAN ELEVEN FIRMS. THE ASSESSEE IS DOING THE SA ME BUSINESS SINCE SO MANY YEARS. DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT, THE A.O. FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED RS. 2,87,100/ - IN JAN AKALYAN SAHAKARI BANK LTD., HIS SB ACCOUNT NO. 3491. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED COMPLETE CASH BOOK INDICATING THE AVAILABILITY OF CASH AS ON THE DATE OF DEPOSIT. HOWEVER, THE A.O. DID NOT ACCEPT THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION AND ADDED THE SAME U/S.68 OF THE ACT. BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE A.O. AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS CAREFULLY AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FOUND FROM THE RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS DOING BUSINESS OF CLEANING AND WASHING AND RECONDITIONING OF OLD EMPTY BARREL OF DRUMS/TINS. THE BUSINESS RECEIPTS WAS IN CASH ONLY. WHATEVER AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED, THE SAME WAS RECEIVED IN CASH. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED DATE - WISE CASH BOOK BEFORE THE A.O. INDICATING THE RECEIPT AND PAY MENT OF CASH. THIS STATEMENT ALSO INDICATES DEPOSIT OF CASH IN THE RESPECTIVE BANK ACCOUNT. NO WHERE THE A.O. HAS POINTED OUT ANY DEFECT IN THE CASH BOOK. ONLY SEVEN ENTRIES WITH REGARD TO THE RECEIPT OF CASH RECEIVED FROM THE FRIEND AND RELATIVES WAS 3 ITA NO . 6287/MUM/2012 (A.Y. 2006 - 07) PARESH D. PANCHAMIA HUF VS. ITO D OUB TED WHICH AMOUNTS TO RS. 97,630/ - . THE LD. C IT(A) ALSO D OUBTED THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF LOAN CREDITORS. THUS , IT IS CLEAR THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL CASH CREDIT IN THE CASH BOOK ONLY AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM THE LOAN CREDITOR WAS DOUBTED WHICH AMOUNT TO ` .9 7 , 630/ - . T HERE IS NO REASON FOR DOUBTING THE OTHER CASH AMOUNT RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF CLEANING AND WASHING CHARGES FROM THE CUSTOMERS, WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR AS INCOME. ACCORDINGLY , WE CONFIRM THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 97,630/ - AND DIRECT THE A. O. TO DELETE THE BALANCE OF ADDITION WHICH AMOUNTS TO RS. 1,89,470/ - ( RS. 2,87,100 RS. 97 , 630). WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED IN PART. ORDER PRONOUNCED I N THE OPEN COURT ON AUGUST 19 , 201 5 SD/ - SD/ - ( PAWAN SINGH ) ( R. C. SHARMA ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / MUMBAI ; / DATED : 19 . 0 8 .201 5 . . ./ ROSHANI , SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. / CIT - CONCERNED 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD F ILE / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI