Sahebrao Nimba Pawar, Nashik V. Income-tax Officer,

ITA 945/PUN/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0339 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 06-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUMITRA BANERJI
• Assessee Lawyers: S N DOSHI
• Keywords: Gift

Judgement Text

- IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH SMC, PUNE , BEFORE SHRI R. P. TOLANI, JM / ITA NO. 945/PN/2016 ! '#! / ASSESSM ENT YEAR : 2010-11 SAHEBRAO NIMBA PAWAR AT. POST : BHAUR TAL: DEOLA NASHIK, PIN-423102 PAN : APIPP9306H . /APPELLANT VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -2(2), NASHIK. . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.N DOSHI / RESPONDENT BY : SMT. SUMITRA BANERJI $ / ORDER PER R. P. TOLANI, JM: THIS IS THE ASSESSEES APPEAL RAISING FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE EXPLAN ATION ABOUT THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT MADE IN BANK SUGGEST ING QUITE CLEARLY THAT DEPOSITS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.21,01,346/- ARE CLEARLY OUT OF THE CASH WITHDRAWAL MADE PRIOR TO THE DATE OF CAS H DEPOSITS ON RELEVANT DATES AND ACCEPTING ONLY RS.7,39,832/- AS SATI SFACTORY EXPLAINED. 2. ACCEPTING ONLY RS. 2,00,000/- OUT OF THE TOTAL GIFT OF RS.12,00,000/-DESPITE DULY CONFIRMED BY PARENT IN LAW AND SUPPORTING THE FOR THE GIFT MADE BY THEM. / DATE OF HEARING : 14.12.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 16.12.2016 ITA NO. 945/PN/2016 2 3. REJECTING THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION THAT ASSESSE ES MAJOR SOURCE OF INCOME IS FROM AGRICULTURAL INCOME. 2. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT BEING AN A GRICULTURIST AND NOT WELL WORSE WITH THE INCOME TAX LAWS, ASSESSEE COU LD NOT MAKE FULL COMPLIANCE ABOUT CASH DEPOSITS BEFORE LD. AO. HOWEVER C ASH FLOW STATEMENT WAS FILED BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) WHO FOUND THE SA ME PARTLY SATISFACTORILY AND REDUCED THE ADDITION PARTLY. LD. CIT(A) FA ILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE MAJOR SOURCE OF DEPOSIT WAS FROM AG TRICULTURAL INCOME DERIVED FROM THE ANCESTRAL AGRICULTURAL LAND. NECESSA RY FORMS NO. 7 AND 12 WERE FILED. SIMILARLY IN RESPECT OF THE GIFTS FROM PARENT IN LAW, THE SAME HAS BEEN ACCEPTED PARTLY TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 2,00,000/- OUT OF RS. 12 LACS.. 3. THE EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN PROP ERLY APPRECIATED. LD. CIT (A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDE NCE WITHOUT CALLING ANY REMAND REPORT FROM THE FIELD GAVE ONLY PARTLY RELIEF. A REMAND REPORT FROM THE FIELD WOULD CLARIFY THE ISSUES. I T IS URGED THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE THE MATTER MAY BE SET ASIDE A ND RESTORED BACK TO LD. AO FOR PROPER INQUIRIES. ASSESSEE FULLY UNDERTAKES TO COMPLY WITH REQUIREMENTS, COOPERATE IN THE ASSESSMENT AND NOT DELAY THE PROCEEDINGS. 4. THE LD. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND CONTENDS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BE ABLE TO GIVE PROPER DETAILS ABOUT MEMBERS OF THE JOINT FAMILY WHO POSSESSED THE ANCESTRAL AGRICULTURAL LAND AND FAILED TO DIS CHARGE THE ONUS CAST ON HIM. THERE IS NO INFORMATION ABOUT THE SIZE A ND CONSTITUTION OF ALLEGED JOINT FAMILY HOLDING THE ANCESTRAL LAN D, AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS. NO SALE BILLS OF ALLEGED AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE OF ANY NATURE HAVE BEEN PRODUCED EVER TO JUSTIFY THE CLAIM OF HUGE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND SAVINGS THEREFROM. ASSESSEE IS RICH AND WAS FLU SH WITH ITA NO. 945/PN/2016 3 CASH AND OFF AND ON WITHDRAWING AND DEPOSITING THE CASH FOR WHICH ALS O NO PLAUSIBLE REASON IS GIVEN. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE IS NO LOGIC TO INSIST OF ON CASH GIFT OF RS. 20 LACS FROM OLD IN LAWS WITH SK ETCHY INFORMATION, NON DISCHARGE OF STATUTORY ONUS AND IMPROBABLE EXPLANATION, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT ESCAPE FROM THE RIGOR OF LAW. 5. LD. COUNSEL IN REPLY EARNESTLY CONTENDS THAT FULL COOP ERATION AS UNDERTAKEN ABOVE WILL BE GIVEN ALONG WITH NECESSARY EVIDENCE. 6. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE BOTH SIDES A ND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS PER EVIDENCES ON REC ORD, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICE R WHICH IS ATTRIBUTED TO ASSESSEE BEING AN AGRICULARIST AND NOT WELL WORSE WITH THE INCOME TAX PROVISION. LD. CIT(A) THOUGH GAVE PART RELIE F, THE BASIS THEREOF IS NOT VERY CLEAR. THERE IS MERIT IN THE CONTENT ION OF LD. A.R. THE CONSTITUTION OF THE JOINT FAMILY OWNING TO AGRICULTURAL LAND, S AVINGS ETC ARE NOT CLEAR FROM THE RECORD WHICH NEEDS TO BE COMPLIED WITH. LOOKING AT THE ENTIRETY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES MENTIONED ABO VE, ENDS OF JUSTICE WILL BE MATE, IF THE MATTER IS SET ASIDE AND RESTORE D BY THE AO TO BE DECIDED DE-NOVO. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCO RDINGLY SET ASIDE AND RESTORED TO LD.ASSESSING OFFICER FAR DE-NOVO DECISION AFTER ACCORDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 7. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED PER STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16.12.2016. SD/- (R. P. TOLANI) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE ; DATED : 16TH DECEMBER, 2016 SB ITA NO. 945/PN/2016 4 $%&'()(# COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. ! ! ' # $ / THE CIT(A)-2, NASHIK 4. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, NASHIK 5. 6. %&' (()* + ! )* + , , - - .. /DR SMC, ITAT, PUNE; '/0 1 GUARD FILE. // TRUE COPY// $ / BY ORDER, (2 )3 / PRIVATE SECRETARY ! )* + / ITAT, PUNE