DCIT, Circle- 5, Pune V. Shri Ameetsingh A Rajpal, Pune

ITA 69/PUN/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6873 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-07-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 14-03-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, PUNE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JM AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM ITA No. 68 to 70/PUN/2021 A.Y. 2007-08 to 2009-10 The Dy. CIT Cir. 5, Appellant Vs. Shri Ameetsingh A. Rajpal 9 Eden Villa 479 Rasta Peth, PUNE – 411 011. PAN; AAQPR 3148 E Respondent Appellant by : Shri S.P. Walimbe Respondent : Shri Suhas P. Bora Date of Hearing : 30-06-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 15-07-2022 ORDER PER S.S. GODARA, JM : These Revenue’s three appeals for A.Y. 2007-08 to 2009-10 arise against the CIT(A)-8 Pune’s common order dated 28-08-2020 passed in case No.PN/CIT(A)-8/ITO Ward 7(2)/233, 234, 235, 323/2015-16/3 involving proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in short “the Act”, respectively. Both parties heard. Case files perused. 2. It transpires at the very outset that the Revenue’s identical twin substantive grounds in all the three cases seek to revise section 68 unexplained cash credit addition involving unsecured loans of Rs.2,39,70,864/- , 1,89,08,000/- and Rs. 4,84,66,000/- followed by the latter issue of assessee to cash deposits the tune of Rs. 89,97,340/-, Rs. 27,10,000 and Rs. 4,38,288/- ,assessment year-wise, respectively. The Assessing Officer had invoked section 68 to make both these additions thereby treating the same as unexplained cash credit deposits whereas the ICIT(A) had reversed the assessment finding to this effect. 2 ITA No. 68 to 70 of 2021 Ameetsingh Rajpal A.Y. 2007-08 to 2009-10 3. The first and foremost vital question that arises for our adjudication is regarding maintainability of Revenue’s instant three appeals. Case laws (1967) 65 CTR 261 (Bom) - Jivatlal Purtapshi Vs. CIT Bombay (2018) taxmann.com, Smt. B. Jayalakshmi Vs. The ACIT (2018) 96 taxmann.com 486 (Madras), Vs. Dy. CIT vs. D.M. Purmesh (2020) 426 ITR 169 (Karnataka) holds that the Revenue could hardly be taken as an aggrieved party against the CIT(A)’s order reversing assessment finding based on the Assessing Officer’s report. 4. Mr. Walimbe vehemently argued that the Assessing Officer had rightly made both these additions as the assessee had failed to prove identity, genuineness and credit-worthiness of both unsecured loans received from his brother Shri Gurmeet Ajitsingh Rajpal and similar position continued for cash deposits made in bank accounts. We find that the Revenue’s instant arguments hardly carry any merit. This is for the reason that the Assessing Officer appears to have submitted his detailed remand report dated 2-7-2020 before the CIT(A) that the assessee’s bother Mr. Gurmeet Ajitsingh Rajpal had got recorded their statement way back on 25-3-2015 regarding the impugned unsecured loans, source(s) thereof which were found so factually correct. His findings dealing with this former issue is at pages 75 to 77 in paper book. This is followed by the Assessing Officer’s detailed discussion at page 78that the assessee’s cash withdrawals in all these three years were much more than the cash deposits made in the bank account(s). Coupled with this, the assessee appears to have filed cash book as well during lower appellate proceedings whose entries have nowhere been doubted in the Revenue’s pleadings. Faced with this situation, we hold that the Revenue’s instant twin identical substantive grounds do not deserve to be admitted in light of Assessing Officer’s favourable remand report(s) well as foregoing case law. The same stand rejected accordingly. 3 ITA No. 68 to 70 of 2021 Ameetsingh Rajpal A.Y. 2007-08 to 2009-10 5. The Delay of 108 days identical in three cases stands condoned since falling in Covid 19 pandemic outbreak period. 6. These Revenue’s three appeals are dismissed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 15 th day of July 2022 Sd/- sd/- (DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune; Dated, this 15 th day of July 2022 Ankam Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant. 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT (A)-8, Pune. 4. The Pr. CIT – 3, Pune 5. The D.R. ITAT A’ Bench, Pune. 5. Guard File BY ORDER, Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Pune. 4 ITA No. 68 to 70 of 2021 Ameetsingh Rajpal A.Y. 2007-08 to 2009-10 Date 1 Draft dictated on 30-06-2022 Sr.PS 2 Draft placed before author 07-07-2022 Sr.PS 3 Draft proposed and placed before the second Member JM/AM 4 Draft discussed/approved by second Member AM/JM 5 Approved draft comes to the Sr. PS Sr.PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on 15-07-2022 Sr.PS 7 Date of uploading of order 15-07-2022 Sr.PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk 18-07-2022 Sr.PS 9 Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R 11 Date of dispatch of order