JASU BAJAJ, MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 6650/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9786 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 20-11-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N HEMALATHA LD
• Assessee Lawyers: SURINDER MEHRALD
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Peak credit
• Section: 143(3); 68

Judgement Text

ITA NO.6650/MUM/2017 JASU BAJAJ ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 - IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, MUMBAI . , , BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM ./I.T.A. NO.6650/MUM/2017 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14) JASU BAJAJ 25B,KHETAN BHAVAN,198 JAMSHEDJI TATA ROAD CHURCHGATE MUMBAI-400 020 / VS. INCOME - TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1(2)(1) ROOM NO.10, SCINDIA HOUSE BALLARD PIER MUMBAI-400 038 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. AJJPB-3209-Q ( ! /APPELLANT ) : ( ' ! / RESPONDENT ) REVENUE BY : N.HEMALATHA, LD. DR ASSESSEE BY : SURINDER MEHRA,LD.AR / DATE OF HEARING : 19/03/2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21 /03/2018 /ORDER PER MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) 1. THE CAPTIONED APPEAL BY ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR [AY] 2013-14 ASSAILS THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX (APPEALS)-55 [CIT(A)], MUMBAI, APPEAL NO.CIT(A)-55/ITO(IT)1(2)(1)/IT-108/2015-16 2 ITA NO.6650/MUM/2017 JASU BAJAJ ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 DATED 18/09/2017 QUA CONFIRMATION OF CERTAIN ADDITIONS U/S 68 FOR RS.26 .80 LACS. THE ASSESSMENT FOR IMPUGNED AY WAS FRAMED BY LD. INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1(2)(1), MUMBAI [A O] U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961 ON 29/02/2016 WHERE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DETERMINED AT RS.26.17 LACS AS AGAINST RETURNE D INCOME OF RS.11.95 LACS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 28/06/2013. THE ADDIT IONS OF RS.14.12 LACS U/S 68 AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT IS THE SOLE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS APPEAL. 2. DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, PURSUANT TO CER TAIN ANNUAL INFORMATION RETURN [AIR], IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE DEPOSITED CASH OF R S.26.80 LACS DURING IMPUGNED AY IN ONE OF THE SAVING BANK ACCOUNT HELD WITH KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD., NARIMAN POINT BRANCH . THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID DEPOSITS WERE OUT OF EARLIER WITHDRAW ALS MADE DURING THE IMPUGNED AY AND THEREFORE THE DEPOSITS WERE DULY EX PLAINED. HOWEVER NOT CONVINCED, THE LD. AO WORKED OUT PEAK BALANCE OF RS.14.12 LACS AGAINST THE SAME AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE INCOME OF THE AS SESSEE U/S 68. 3. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CONTESTED THE SAME WITHO UT ANY SUCCESS BEFORE LD.CIT(A) VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18/09/2017 WHER E CIT(A) NOTED THE CASH DEPOSITS/WITHDRAWAL PATTERN AND WHILE REJECTIN G THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS, ENHANCED THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS TO RS. 26.80 LACS. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR ASSESSE [A R], DRAWING OUR ATTENTION TO THE BANK STATEMENT AND SUMMARY OF WITH DRAWALS AND DEPOSITS MADE FROM / IN THE SAID BANK ACCOUNTS AND SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE DEPOSITS 3 ITA NO.6650/MUM/2017 JASU BAJAJ ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WERE DULY SUPPORTED BY EARLIER WITHDRAWALS FROM THE SAME VERY ACCOUNT AND THEREFORE THE IMPUGNED ADDITI ONS WERE NOT JUSTIFIED. PER CONTRA , LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE [DR] JUSTIFIED TH E ACTION OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AN D PERUSED THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OPENING CREDIT BALANCE OF MORE THAN RS.1.44 CRORES IN THE S AID SAVING ACCOUNT AND ALL THE CASH DEPOSITS MADE IN THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT ARE DULY SUPPORTED BY EARLIER WITHDRAWALS FROM THE SAME VERY ACCOUNT. SEC ONDLY, MOST OF THE CASH WITHDRAWALS AND DEPOSITS IN THE SAID ACCOUNT ARE CA RRIED AT CHURCHGATE BRANCH ONLY. IT IS TRITE LAW THAT ADDITIONS COULD NOT BE MADE MERELY ON THE BASIS OF SUSPICIONS, DOUBTS OR MERE CONJECTURES. TH ERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THE SAID CASH DEPOSITS REPRE SENT UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT AND NOTHING IN LAW DEBARS THE ASSESSEE FROM WITHDR AWING THE CASH FROM THE BANK AND THEN AGAIN DEPOSITING IT BACK INT O THE SAME. HENCE, ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE STAND OF THE REVENUE, IN OUR OPINION WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. THEREFORE, BY DELETING T HE SAME, WE ALLOW ASSESSEES APPEAL. 6. RESULTANTLY, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL STANDS ALLOWE D IN TERMS OF OUR ABOVE ORDER. 4 ITA NO.6650/MUM/2017 JASU BAJAJ ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21 ST MARCH , 2018. SD/- SD/- (C. N. PRASAD) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED :21. 03.2018 SR.PS:- THIRUMALESH ! / 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 FILE / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI