Santosh N. Dhoka, Pune V. Income-tax Officer, Ward - 8(1), Pune

ITA 721/PUN/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7177 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 03-02-2020
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 19-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ARISES OUT OF PASSED

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH SMC, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT . / ITA NO.721/PUN/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 SHRI SANTOSH N. DHOKA, POORNIMA COLLECTION, A/P. MOSHI, TAL. HAVELI, PUNE 412 105 PAN : AANPD1544M VS. ITO, WARD-8(1), PUNE (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) / ORDER PER R.S.SYAL, VP : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE ARISES OUT OF THE ORDER PASSE D BY THE CIT(A)-6, PUNE ON 11-12-2017 IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS.15,00,900/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEPOSITS MADE IN ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT. APPELLANT BY SHRI ABHAY A. AVCHAT RESPONDENT BY SMT. VRANDA U. MATKARI DATE OF HEARING 03-02-2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 04-02-2020 ITA NO.721/PUN/2018 SHRI SANTOSH N. DHOKA 2 3. SUCCINCTLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN READYMADE GARMENTS, SUITING AND SHIRTING. DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS OBSERVED THAT A SUM OF RS.15,00,900/ - WAS DEPOSITED IN CASH IN THE ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH HDFC BANK. ON BEING CALLED UPON TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE SAID CASH, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT WA S DEPOSITED BY ONE MR. PRANIT BHAVISKAR TOWARDS REPAYMENT OF LOAN IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE COULD NEITHER SUBSTANTIATE THE EXPLANATION NOR FURNISH ANY CONFIRMATION. TH E ASSESSEE REQUIRED THE AO TO OBTAIN NECESSARY INFORMATION FR OM THE HDFC BANK ACCOUNT. ON A LETTER ISSUED TO HDFC BANK, IT WAS RESPONDED TO THE AO THAT THE CASH WAS DEPOSITED IN ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT BY MR. PRANIT BHAVISKAR, BUT NO FURTHER DETAILS WERE AVAILABLE. THE ASSESSEE WAS AGAIN CONFRONTED WITH THE SAME AND REQUESTED TO PROVE THE IDENTITY WHO ALLEGEDLY DEPOSITED THE CASH IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE REMAINED UNSUCCESSFUL, WHICH LED TO THE MAKING O ADDITION FOR THE EQUAL SUM, THAT GOT CONFIRMED IN THE FIRST APPEAL. ITA NO.721/PUN/2018 SHRI SANTOSH N. DHOKA 3 4. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE RELEVAN T MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE TENDE RED AN EXPLANATION BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT MR. PRANIT BHAVISKAR WAS RUNNING PONZI SCHEME WHO LURED THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FRIENDS TO MAKE INVESTMENTS INTO HIS SCHEME. SUBSEQUENTLY, MR. PRANIT BHAVISKAR WAS FOUND MISSING AFTER COLLECTING A SUM OF RS.78.00 LAKH FROM THE PEOPLE WHO HAD INVESTED THROUG H THE ASSESSEE IN THE PONZI SCHEME. EVEN AN FIR WAS ALSO F ILED AGAINST MR. PRANIT BHAVISKAR. THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT A CASH OF RS.15,00,900/- WAS DEPOSITED IN THE ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT AND IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES IT WAS HIS OBLIGATION TO SUBSTANTIATE THE EXPLANATION AS TO THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT BY SOME CREDIBLE EVIDENCE. HERE IS A CASE IN WHICH THE ASSES SEE IS CLAIMING THAT MR. PRANIT BHAVISKAR DEPOSITED A SUM OF RS.15,00,900/- IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT TOWARDS REPAYMENT O F THE AMOUNTS ALREADY DEPOSITED. THE EXPLANATION IS NOT SUBSTANTIATED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IS ACTUALLY REQUIRED TO BE SO. THE LD. AR REQUESTED FOR ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY FOR ENABLING THE ASSESSEE TO TENDER SOME EVIDENCE CORROBORATIN G HIS VERSION. CONSIDERING THE ENTIRETY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE INSTANT CASE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED ITA NO.721/PUN/2018 SHRI SANTOSH N. DHOKA 4 OPINION THAT IT WOULD BE IN THE FITNESS OF THINGS IF ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY IS GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE TO PLACE ON RECORD THE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS EXPLANATION. I, THEREFORE, SET A SIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND REMIT THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR TAKING A FRESH DECISION ON THE ISSUE. IT IS REITERATED THA T IF THE ASSESSEE STILL FAILS TO LEAD EVIDENCE TO THE SATISFACTION OF TH E AO IN SUCH A FRESH ROUND, THE AO WILL BE ENTITLED TO DRAW AN ADVERSE INFERENCE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04 TH FEBRUARY, 2020. SD/- (R.S.SYAL) / VICE PRESIDENT PUNE; DATED : 04 TH FEBRUARY, 2020 ITA NO.721/PUN/2018 SHRI SANTOSH N. DHOKA 5 / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. ( ) / THE CIT (APPEALS)-6, PUNE 4. THE PR. CIT-5, PUNE 5. , , SMC / DR SMC, ITAT, PUNE; 6. / GUARD FILE. // TRUE COPY // / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE DATE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 03-02-2020 SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 03-02-2020 SR.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER -- JM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. -- JM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS SR.PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS 7. DATE OF UPLOADING ORDER SR.PS 8. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 10. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE A.R. 11. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER. *