ITO, Ward-(2), Warangal V. Sri Ram Babu Atmakuru, Warangal

ITA 658/HYD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 87281 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-01-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 21-01-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 03-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJAT MITRA
• Assessee Lawyers: A V RAGHURAM
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI D.MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B.RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 658 /HYD/201 3 : ASST. YEAR 200 9 - 1 0 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2, WARANGAL, V/S. S H RI RAM BABU ATMAKURU, HANAMKONDA, DIST. WARANGAL. ( PAN - ABLPA 4354 M ) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAJAT MITRA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A.V.RAGHURAM DATE OF HEARING 22. . 01 .201 5 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 22.01.2015 O R D E R PER D.MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT THIS APPEAL BY THE R E V ENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(APPEALS) VI, HYDERABAD AND IT PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10. 2. THE ONLY GROUND URGED B E FORE US READS AS UN D ER - THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO H A VE DISCUSSED THE REASONS OF ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE DELETING THE ADDITION. IT IS NO T CLEAR, HOW EARLIER CASH WITHDRAWLS FORMS PART OF DEPOSIT O F R S .13.50 LAKH S . IT IS TOTALLY AGAINST THE NORMAL CON D U C T TO DEPOS I T PAST ACCUMULATION WITHOUT SPENDING THE SAME. WHEN TH E ASSESSEE IS HAVING CASH, HOW CAN IT AGAIN WITH D RAW CASH REGULARLY. I TA NO. 658/HYD/201 3 S H RI RAM BABU ATMAKURU , HANAMKONDA, DIST. WARANGAL. 2 3. FACTS NECESSARY FOR THE DISPOSA L OF THE APPEAL ARE S TATED IN B RIEF . ASSESSEE I S ENGAGED IN THE B U S IN E SS OF PURCHASE AND SALE O F CLOTH ON WHOLESALE AND RETAIL BASIS. FOR THE YEAR UN D ER CONSIDERATION, HE DECLARED TOTAL IN C OM E OF R S .3,04,770 FROM BUSINESS, WHEREAS THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPL E TED BY DETERMINING THE INCOME AT RS.30,48,450 WHICH CONSI S TED OF ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CREDIT OF R S .13,50,000 . A S COULD BE NOTI CE D FROM PAGE 4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, A N AMOUNT OF RS .13,50,000 WAS REFLECT E D IN THE C ASH BOOK A S ON 30.9.2008 . O N THE S AME DAY, THE A SSESSEE PAID ADVANCE TOWARDS PU R CHA S E OF PLOT. IT IS NOT DIS P UTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE TENDERED AN EXPLANATION WHEREIN HE STATED THAT HE RECEIVED LOAN FROM ICICI BANK. HOWEVER, THE INFORMATION OF TH E ASSESSING OFFICER IS THAT THE C HEQUE RECEIVED FROM THE B ANK TOWARDS LOAN WAS NO T DEPO S ITED IN ANY OF THE ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNTS. HE THER E FORE, INFERRED THAT THE CHEQUE ISSUED BY ICICI BANK MUST HAVE B E EN USED FOR SOME OTHER PU R PO SE , AND HE MUST HAVE INTRODUCED HIS UNACCOUN T ED MONEY T O THE TUNE OF R S .13,50,000 IN HI S CASH BOOK WHICH WAS UTILI S ED FOR GIVING ADVANCE TOWARDS PU R CHA S E OF LAND. 4. AGGRI EV ED, ASSESSEE CONTENDED BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT IT WAS BROUGHT TO THE NO T I C E O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT A SUM OF RS.13,50,000 WAS RE CE IV E D AS LOAN FROM ICICI BANK AND THE SAME HAS BEEN C R E D I T ED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, AND THUS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN HOLDING THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME. BE F OR E THE LEARNED CIT(A), IT WAS STATED THAT HE HAS RECEIVED A SUM OF R S .13 ,34,830 FROM ICICI BANK BY WAY OF CHEQUE. AS COULD BE NOTICED F ROM PARA 8.2, IT WAS BROUGHT TO THE NO T I C E OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT THE BANK ACCOUN T COPY REFLECTS THE FACTUM O F DEPOSIT OF CHEQUE FOR A SUM OF R S .13,34,830 ON 5.9.2008, WHICH WAS THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM THE ICICI BANK HFC LTD. IT WAS ALSO EXPLAINED T HAT TH E ASSESSEE HAD WITHD R AWN THE AMOUNTS I TA NO. 658/HYD/201 3 S H RI RAM BABU ATMAKURU , HANAMKONDA, DIST. WARANGAL. 3 SUBSEQUENTLY AND DEPOSITED THE SAME IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF PROPRIETARY BUSINESS CONCERN BY 30.9.2008. 5. THE LEARNED CIT(A) APPEARS TO HA VE P E RUSED THE M A TERIAL PAPERS FURNISHED BEFORE HIM. IN THIS REGARD, HE OBSERVED AS UNDER - 8.3. ..HOWEVER, ON EXAMINATION OF THE BANK ACCOUNT, IT MAKES THE FACT CLE A R THAT THE APPELLANTS BA N K ACCOUNT WAS CREDITED WITH A CON S I DER ABLE AMOUNT OF R S .13.34 LACS ON 05.09.2008 AGAINST WHICH CER T AIN CASH WI T H D RAWALS WERE MADE WHICH ARE EXPLAIN E D TO BE THE SOU R CES FOR THE CASH DEPOSIT MADE INTO THE BOOKS ON 30.09.2008. IN THIS CA S E, THE BONE OF CONTENTION WAS THE DOUBT REGARDING THE ENCASHMENT OF TH E CH E QUE, WHICH HAS BEEN EXPLAINED BY SUBMISSION OF THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE SOU R CES FOR THE CASH DEPO S IT TOO STAND EXPLAINED WITH THE SUBSEQUENT CASH WITHDRAWALS MADE FORM THE BANK ACCOUNT, WHICH ARE CONSIDERABLE AMOUN TS . UNDER THE CIR C UM S TANCES, I AM OF THE CONSI D ERED OPINION THAT THE G R OUND ON WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER TR E ATED THE CREDITS INTO THE BOOKS A UN E XPLAIN E D, DO NOT EXIST ON FACTS, AND AS SUCH, TH E ADDITION MADE ON TH E SAID BASIS DO NO T SURVIVE. .. AGGRI E VED, REVENUE IS IN APPEAL B E FORE US. 6. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY SUBMI T TIN G THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THE MONEY WI T H D RAWN OUT OF THE L O A N RECEIVED FROM ICICI BANK WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE AND UT ILI S ED BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS PU R CHA S E OF LAND/PLOT. HOWEVER, NEITHER A COPY O F THE BANK ACCOUNT NOR TH E COPY O F THE C A SH BOOK , WHICH WAS ST AT ED TO HAVE BEEN FUR N I S HED BEFORE THE CIT(A), WAS PL A CED BEFORE US TO CONTRADICT THE FIN D I N GS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). I TA NO. 658/HYD/201 3 S H RI RAM BABU ATMAKURU , HANAMKONDA, DIST. WARANGAL. 4 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF O F THE ASSESSEE PLACED B E FORE US COPY O F THE BANK ACCOUNT TO SHOW THAT LOAN / CHEQUE WAS DEPO S I T ED ON 5.9.2008 WHEREAS THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASSUMED THAT THE CH E QUE WAS NO T DEPOSITED AND ON TH AT LIMITED COUNT, H E SOUGHT TO M A KE THE ADDITION; HAVING REGARD TO THE F A CT THAT THE F A CTUM OF C R E D IT ING OF THE LOAN I S VERIFIED BY THE CIT(A) , AND IT I S NO T CONTROVERTE D BY THE REVENUE, TH E RE IS NO CA S E FOR MAKING AN Y ADDITION. 8. WE HAVE CAREFULLY C ON S I D ERED THE RIVAL SUBMI S SION S AND P ER USED THE RECORD. AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED CIT(A), THE ADDIT I ON WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAINLY ON TH E GROUND THAT T HE CHEQUE WAS NO T DEPO S ITED IN ANY OF THE BANK ACCOUN T S ON 30.9.2008, WH E REAS IT W AS ESTABLI S H E D B E FORE THE CIT(A), BY FURNISHING THE BANK ACCOUNT COPY , THAT THE CHEQUE W A S IN FA C T DEPOSITED ON 5.9.2008. I N THE ABSENCE OF ANY M A T E RIAL PL A CED BEFORE US TO CON T R A DICT THE FIN D IN G O F THE LEARNED CIT(A), WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE PL E A OF THE R E VENUE. IN TH E CIR C UM S TANCES, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER O F THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE APPEAL FIL E D BY THE REVENUE. 9. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUN CE D IN THE COURT ON 22 ND JANUARY, 2015 SD/ - SD/ - (B.RAMAKOTAIAH) ( D.MANMOHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DT/ - 22ND JANUARY, 2015 I TA NO. 658/HYD/201 3 S H RI RAM BABU ATMAKURU , HANAMKONDA, DIST. WARANGAL. 5 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. S H RI RAM BABU ATMAKURU, H.NO.6 - 2 - 49/4, MAIN ROAD, CHOWRASTHA, HANAMKONDA, DIST. WARANGAL. 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2, WARANGAL 3. 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(APPEALS) - V I , HYDERABAD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX V , HYDERABAD 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ITAT, HYDERABAD. B.V.S