Rajesh Rathore, Khargone V. ITO Khargone, Khargone

ITA 860/Ind/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9405 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-01-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 08-09-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business income
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 143(2)

Judgement Text

आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, इंदौर यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VIRTUAL HEARING ITA No.860/Ind/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Rajesh Rathore, Khargone PAN No.AVOPR4357C : Appellant V/s ITO Khargone : Respondent Appellant by Shri S.N. Agrawal, AR Respondent by Shri Amit Soni, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 21.01.2022 Date of Pronouncement 31.01.2022 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, A.M.: The above captioned appeal filed at the instance of the Assessee is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) (in short ‘Ld. CIT(A)]-II, Indore dated 27.05.2019 which is arising out of the order u/s 143(3) of the Rajesh Rathore ITA No.860/Ind/2019 2 Income Tax Act 1961(In short the ‘Act’) dated 18.12.2017 by ITO- Khargone. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1.Income tax Officer has not considered past savings of Rs.3,44,000/- in spite of appellant running business for more than 15 years and registered under MPVAT and made the addition which is not correct and thus to be cancelled. 2. Assessing Officer consider that this much amount is consumed in his household expense, which is wrong as he was earning business and agriculture income from more than past 10 years. And every businessman would save some money out of his profit either he roll back in business or invest for future purpose. Thus, no past savings to the tune of Rs.344000/- is not acceptable considering his business as agricultural income. 2. The only issue relates to addition for Rs.3,44,000/- made by the ld. AO ignoring the contention of the assessee that the said amount was accumulation of past savings. Action of the ld. AO was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). 3. Aggrieved assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal. Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that both the lower authorities erred in doubting the genuineness of the accumulated past savings Rajesh Rathore ITA No.860/Ind/2019 3 of Rs.3,44,000/- available with the assessee from past income from business and agricultural operations. Reference was made to the written synopsis filed on 31.03.2022 and also paper book containing 78 pages filed on 15.01.2001. 4. Per contra, Ld. DR vehemently argued supporting the orders of both lower authorities. 5. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. Sole issue relates to addition of Rs.3,44,000/- made by the Ld. AO for not accepting the claim of the assessee having past savings. We observe that the assessee is an individual and during A.Y. 2015-16 earned business income of Rs. 5,52,720/- and agricultural income of Rs.2,38,000/- and the same was declared in the return filed on 30.03.2017. During the course of scrutiny proceedings carried out through CASS followed by serving of notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act, Ld. AO observed that there was cash deposit of Rs.86,88,500/- in the account held with Bank of India. Assessee was asked to explain the source of cash deposits. Assessee made detailed submissions stating that the source of the cash is Rs.81,08,800/- received from sales declared in the returned income, Rs.2,38,000/- income from agricultural and Rs.3,44,000/- Rajesh Rathore ITA No.860/Ind/2019 4 out of accumulated past savings. Both lower authorities have only doubted the genuineness of the past saving of Rs.3,44,000/- and have accepted the source of remaining sum. 6. We, observe that the year under appeal is A.Y. 2015-16. During A.Y. 2009-10 to A.Y.2014-15 the assessee has shown total business income of Rs.12,14,802/- and agricultural income of Rs.12,00,000/-. This fact is not disputed at the end of the revenue authorities. Even prior to A.Y. 2009-10 assessee has claimed to be earning income. 7. We, therefore, under the totality of the facts, are of the considered view that against total income of Rs.24,14,802/-( business income Rs.12,14,802/- + agricultural income Rs.12,00,000/-) earned in last six years are sufficient enough to prove the genuineness of the accumulated past saving of Rs.3,44,000/-. We, therefore, find no merit in the finding of both the lower authorities doubting the genuineness of Rs. 3,44,000/- as accumulated past savings. We, thus, reverse the finding of Ld. CIT(A) and delete the addition of Rs. 3,44,000/- made by the Ld. AO and allow all the grounds raised by the assessee. Rajesh Rathore ITA No.860/Ind/2019 5 8. In the result, Assessee’s appeal ITANo.860/Ind/2019 is allowed. The order pronounced as per Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 31.01.2022. Sd/- Sd/- (MAHAVIR PRASAD) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER दनांक /Dated : 31.01.2022 Patel/Sr. PS Copy to: The Appellant/Respondent/CIT concerned/CIT(A) concerned/ DR, ITAT, Indore/Guard file. By Order, Asstt.Registrar, I.T.A.T., Indore