ITO, JALORE V. Shri Bhawarlal Solanki, JALORE

ITA 76/JODH/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 7623314 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-05-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 11-02-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N A JOSHI
• Keywords: Unexplained investment
• Section: 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N. K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.76/JODH/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 PAN NO. ACCPS 5499 A THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, VS. SHRI BHAWARLAL SOLAN KI WARD- JALORE. S/O SHRI KISTOOR, LIC AGENT, MAHAVEER COMPLEX, HIGH SCHOOL ROAD, BHINMAL, DISTT: JALORE. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI N.A. JOSHI, D.R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AMIT KOTHARI, A.R. DATE OF HEARING : 02/05/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08/05/2014 ORDER PER N. K. SAINI: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE OR DER DATED 03/12/2013 OF LD. CIT(APPEALS)-JODHPUR. THE ONLY GROUND RAISED IN THIS APPEAL READS AS UNDER:- I. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE CASE, THE CIT(A) JODHPUR HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING RS. 17,91 ,150/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69 OF THE I.T . ACT IGNORING THE FACTS THAT ASSESSEE HAS NEVER FURNISHED ANY EVI DENCE ABOUT THE SOURCES OF THE DEPOSITS IN CASH IN HIS SAVING B ANK ACCOUNT. 2. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 29/05/2009 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS. 1,7 4,840/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF AIR INFORMATION, NOTICED TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAD 2 DEPOSITED RS. 17,91,150/- IN CASH IN HIS SAVING BAN K ACCOUNT IN PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, BHINMAL BRANCH DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESS EE FAILED TO PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR EVIDENCE BEFORE THE ASSESSING O FFICER FOR EXPLAINING THE SOURCE OF ABOVE SAID DEPOSIT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED A SUM OF RS. 17,91,150/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT (CASH DEPOSIT ) OUT OF AN UNDISCLOSED SOURCE AND MADE THE ADDITION. 3. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS AN AGENT OF LIC OF INDIA AGENT WORKING IN SMALL DISTRICT AT JALORE AND HAS TO MOVE AROUND IN THE NEARBY VILLAGES FOR HIS WORK. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT VARIOUS CLIENTS OF THE ASSESSEE TO WHOM THE SERVICES RENDERED, WERE IN SOME BUSINESS OR JOB OUT SIDE THE STATE AND FOR DEPOSITING THE PREMIUM OF THEIR INSURANCE POLICIES, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO MOVE AROUND AND COLLECT THE PAYMENT FOR DEPOSITING THE S AME WITH THE INSURANCE COMPANY. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TO KEEP THE TRACK OF SUCH INSURANCE POLICIES, COLLECT THE PAYMENT AND DEPOSIT THE SAME WITH THE LIC AND THAT THE CLIENTS TO WHOM SUCH SERVICES WERE RENDERE D, WERE NOT VERY EDUCATED AND THEY WERE DEPENDENT UPON THEIR AGENTS FOR SUCH SERVICES. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED A CHART SHOWING DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCO UNT AND PAYMENT OF RESPECTIVE POLICY PREMIUM OF THE VARIOUS PARTIES, M ADE OUT OF WITHDRAWAL FROM TIME TO TIME ALONGWITH BANK STATEMENT AND ALSO FURN ISHED DETAILS OF COMMISSION RECEIVED FROM LIC FROM SUCH POLICIES FOR WHICH PREMIUM WAS PAID BY HIM ON BEHALF OF HIS CLIENTS THROUGH THE BANK AC COUNT. IT WAS ALSO STATED 3 THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT AND R EASONABLE CAUSE IN SUBMITTING THESE EVIDENCES BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFF ICER. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) SENT THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY TH E ASSESSEE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR HIS COMMENT. THE ASSESSING OF FICER VIDE HIS REPORT DATED 28/10/2013 ASSERTED THAT SUFFICIENT AND REASO NABLE OPPORTUNITIES WERE GRANTED FOR PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THAT N O SUCH DETAILS WERE PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS AND THE CASE MAY BE DECIDED ON MERITS. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THA T THE ASSESSEE BEING AN LIC AGENT HAD VARIOUS CLIENTS AND IN NORMAL COURSE OF PRACTICE, HE RECEIVED PREMIUM OF THEIR POLICIES EITHER IN CASH OR THEY DI RECTLY DEPOSITED IN HIS SAVING BANK ACCOUNT, WHICH HE USED TO PAY TO LIC ON BEHALF OF HIS CLIENTS. THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED DETAILS OF BANK DEPOSITS ALONGWITH NAME OF THE CUSTOMERS FROM WHOM THE PREMI UMS WERE RECEIVED AND SUCCESSFULLY LINKED ALL SUCH DEPOSITS WITH CORRESP ONDING PAYMENT TO LIC BY FURNISHING COPIES OF RECEIPTS FROM LIC, CONFIRMATIO NS FROM CLIENTS AND ESTABLISHING RECONCILIATION BETWEEN THE PREMIUM PAI D AND COMMISSION RECEIVED AS AN AGENT OF LIC AGAINST SUCH PREMIUM P AYMENT. THE LD. CIT(A) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT ALL THE ABOVE SAID DETAILS CLE ARLY EXPLAINED AND JUSTIFIED THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS IN SAVING BANK ACCOUNT OF TH E ASSESSEE, VARIOUS CUSTOMERS IN THEIR CONFIRMATIONS HAD CONFIRMED TO H AVE GIVEN CASH FOR THEIR LIC PREMIUM TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAD MADE NO ADVERSE 4 COMMENT ON THE DETAILS SENT TO HIM IN THE REMAND PR OCEEDINGS. HE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR REVEALED THAT THE INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISS ION HAD BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCE S. HE, THEREFORE, DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. NOW THE DEPARTMENT IN APPEAL. 6. THE LEARNED D.R. STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND REITERATED THE OBSERVATIONS MADE IN THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER DATED 24/11/2011. 7. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND S TRONGLY SUPPORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE P ARTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE BEING AN LIC AGENT, WAS C OLLECTING THE LIC PREMIUM FROM HIS CLIENTS, WHICH WAS DEPOSITED IN HI S BANK ACCOUNT AND FROM THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT, THE PREMIUM WAS PAID TO THE LIC OF INDIA. HOWEVER, ALL THE DETAILS COULD NOT BE FURNISHED BEFORE THE ASSES SING OFFICER, WHO MADE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. LATER ON, WHEN THE DETAILS FOR C ASH DEPOSITS ALONGWITH CONFIRMATIONS FROM THE CLIENTS AND RECONCILIATION S TATEMENT WAS FURNISHED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE SAME WERE SENT TO THE AS SESSING OFFICER FOR HIS COMMENTS IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS. HOWEVER, NO ADV ERSE COMMENT WAS 5 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, THE LD. C IT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER. WE DO NOT SEE ANY VALID GROUND TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND AS SUCH DO NOT SEE ANY MERIT IN THIS APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT. 9. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS DISMIS SED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 08 TH MAY, 2014). SD/- SD/- (HARI OM MARATHA) (N. K. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 08 TH MAY, 2014 *RANJAN COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT- 2. RESPONDENT- 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. D.R. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, JODHPUR.