SHRI BADRI NARAYAN BHATEWARA, Jhabua V. The ACIT, Ratlam

ITA 708/IND/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5712 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 02-03-2016
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 10-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA
• Section: 10(14); 10

Judgement Text

BADRI NARAYAN ITA 708 OF 2014 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 708/IND/2014 A.Y. 2005-06 BADRI NARAYAN BHATEWARA, THANDLA PAN AEDPB 2961 A :: APPELLANT VS ACIT-RATLAM :: RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY SHRI KAIDE KANGSAWALA RESPONDENT BY SHRI R.A. VERMA DATE OF HEARING 02.3.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 02.3.2016 O R D E R PER SHRI B.C. MEENA, AM THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGING TH E ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)- UJJAIN, DATED 08.7.2014. 2. THE FIRST EFFECTIVE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION OF RS.6,57,000/- U/S 68 OF THE ACT. FACTS, IN BRIEF, OF THE ISSUE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL, A SALARIED EMPLOYEE OF THE LIC OF INDIA WORKING AS A DEVELOPMENT OFFICER. DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEA R UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE THE CASH DEPOSITS IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT WITH BANK OF BARODA AT JHABUA AT RS.5,67,000 (RS.2,00,000 ON 26. 8.04 + RS.2,00,000 ON BADRI NARAYAN ITA 708 OF 2014 2 26.8.04 + RS.2,00,000 ON 28.3.05 + RS.57,000 ON 30. 3.05). THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ABOVE DEPOSITS REM AINED UNEXPLAINED AND ACCORDINGLY, HE MADE THE ADDITION. AGAINST THE SAME , THE ASSESSEE APPROACHED THE LD. CIT(A), WHO CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO. NOW, THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US. 2.1 BEFORE US, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CON TENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN THE REGULAR BO OKS OF ACCOUNT. THE PASSBOOK SUPPLIED BY THE BANK OF THE ASSESSEE CANNO T BE REGARDED AS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIV ED RS.17,63,471/- FROM HIM EMPLOYER LIC OF INDIA AND OUT OF WHICH HE HAS W ITHDRAWN CASH OF RS.12,07,540/- ON VARIOUS DATES AND HE HAS RE-DEPOS ITED ONLY RS.6,57,000/- DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, THE IDENTITY OF THE DEPOSITOR, CAPACITY OF THE DEPOSITOR AND THE GENUINENESS OF TH E TRANSACTION IS ESTABLISHED. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED ON VARIOUS CASE- LAWS AS DETAILED IN THE PAPER BOOK. SOME OF JUDICIA L PRONOUNCEMENTS ARE AS UNDER: 1. S.R. VENKATA RATNAM VS. CIT, 127 ITR 807 (KAR.), 2. ADDL. CIT VS. GHAI LIME STONE CO., 144 ITR 140, 142 (MP), 3. DHANSIRAM AGARWAL VS. CIT, (1996) 4.10 (GAU) 4. ITO VS. ASHOK KUMAR JAIN (ITA NO.180/CHD/2013, O RDER DATED 03.11.15) (ITAT-CHANDIGARH). ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF T HE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. BADRI NARAYAN ITA 708 OF 2014 3 2.2 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF BOT H THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE FILE. ON CONS IDERATION OF FACTS AND MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS S UFFICIENT CASH WITHDRAWALS AND THE REVENUE FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT THE CASH W AS USED SOMEWHERE ELSE. A PERUSAL OF COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT ANNEXED AT PAGES 1 TO 5 OF THE PAPER BOOK ASCERTAINS THE SAME. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE OTH ER SUPPORTIVE DOCUMENTS ALONG WITH THE RELEVANT CASE-LAWS IN THE PAPER BOOK IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM. THE AO WITHOUT BRINGING ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD HELD THAT THE ABOVE DEPOSITS REMAINED UNEXPLAINED. THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES COULD NOT APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THERE WERE SUFFICIENT CASH WITHDRAWALS. DETAIL S OF THE SAME ARE FILED IN THE SUBMISSION AND PAPER BOOK WHICH ESTABLISH THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. WE, THEREFORE, FIND THAT ASSESSEE HAS SUFFICIENTLY EXPL AINED HIS CLAIM. EVEN LD. DR COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE ABOVE FACTUAL MATRIX BEFOR E US AND NO CONTRARY MATERIAL WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT LD. CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE DELETED THE ADDITION. THUS, IN VIEW OF THE FACTS/SUBMISSIONS IN THE LIGHT OF THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS, AS NARRATED A BOVE, WE DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.6,57,000/-. THE ISSUE OF THE APPEAL OF THE A SSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 3. THE NEXT EFFECTIVE ISSUE IS WITH REGARD TO DISAL LOWANCE OF EXEMPTION U/S 10(14)(I) OF THE ACT. THE FACTS, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S 10 AT RS.4,30,085/- RECEIVED BY HIM O N ACCOUNT OF ADDITIONAL CONVEYANCE ALLOWANCE FROM HIS EMPLOYER. THE ASSESSE E WAS ASKED TO FURNISH DETAILS ALONG WITH RELEVANT MATERIAL. THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE MP HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. A.K. G HOSH, ORDER DATED BADRI NARAYAN ITA 708 OF 2014 4 05.5.2003. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT LIC OF INDIA HAS NOT ALLOWED THIS EXEMPTION AND DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWING THE EXEMPTION MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.4,30,085/-. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE APPROACHED THE LD. CIT(A), WHO CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. NOW, THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US. 3.1 BEFORE US, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CON TENDED THAT LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES DID NOT CONSIDER THE SUBMISSION S AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED EXPENDITURE OF RS.4,55,113/- ON ACCOUNT OF RENT OF JEEP, WHICH WAS HIRED BY THE ASSESSEE TO TRAVEL TO THE REMOTE LOCATIONS IN M.P. FOR PERFORMING HIS DUTIES WHERE R OAD INFRASTRUCTURE IS VERY POOR. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED COMPLETE DETAILS, CERTIFICATE FROM EMPLOYER ETC. AS ARE FILED FROM PAGES 13 TO 22 OF THE PAPER BOOK. CASE-LAWS AS FURNISHED FROM PAGES 59 TO 78 HAVE NOT BEEN APPRECI ATED IN THE PROPER PERSPECTIVE BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. THEREFORE, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ACTUAL LY INCURRED EXPENDITURE OF RS.4,55,113/- ON ACCOUNT OF CONVEYANCE THROUGHOU T THE YEAR AND HENCE, ACTUAL CONVEYANCE REIMBURSEMENT RECEIVED AT RS.4,30 ,085/- SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS EXEMPTION U/S 10(14) OF THE I.T. ACT. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 3.2 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF BOT H THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE FILE. THE ASS ESSEE HAS FILED A PAPER BOOK ALONG WITH WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, WHEREIN, THE RELEVA NT DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN ANNEXED. ASSESSEE HAS AGITATED THAT THE DOCUMENTS H AVE NOT BEEN BADRI NARAYAN ITA 708 OF 2014 5 APPRECIATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES IN THE PROPE R PERSPECTIVE ON THIS ISSUE. ALL THESE REQUIRE RECONSIDERATION AT THE LEV EL OF THE AO. THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ON THIS ISSUE. HOWEVER, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ASSESSEE SHALL PROVIDE THE VOU CHERS OF THE EXPENSES FOR THE CLAIM OF THE EXEMPTION. THUS, THE ISSUE IS REST ORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. AO WITH DIRECTION TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF THE AS SESSEE IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AND RELEVANT CASE-LAWS. THE AO SHALL DEC IDE THE ISSUE AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASS ESSEE SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO FILE ANY FURTHER EVIDENCE, IF ANY, IN SUPPORT OF IT S CLAIM. THUS, THE ISSUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED PARTLY. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 02.3.2016 . SD/- ( D.T. GARASIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- (B.C. MEENA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 02.3.2016 !VYS! COPY TO: APPELLANT / RESPONDENT / CIT(A) / CIT / DR, INDORE