Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI MANISH BORAD
O R D E R Per Shri Kul Bharat, Judicial Member Deepesh Savla This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A)-II, Bhopal, dated 14.1.2016 for the assessment year 2008-09 on the following grounds of appeal:
Deepesh and Girish Savla 2 ITA 500, 503 and 504 of 2016 “1. That the order of ld. CIT(A) is bad-in-law, contrary to facts on record and also against the provisions of law, without jurisdiction and void ab-initio and hence liable to be quashed.
2. That ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that assessee has failed to satisfactorily explain the source of deposit in saving account amounting to Rs.2,62,99,275/- which substantial evidence.
3. That ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that amount of Rs.2,62,99,275/- being amount deposited in saving account should be added to the income of the assessee by considering the same as unexplained investment as per the provision of Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without accepting the explanation offered by the assessee.”
Facts, in brief, are that the assessee is engaged in the business of trading in food grains carried in the name of M/s. Mohak Traders. The assessee filed return of income declaring income at Rs.1,05,904/-. As per AIR information, the assessee had made cash deposits to the tune of Rs.2,62,99,275/- in his two saving accounts in HDFC bank and ICICI bank.
The notice u/s 148 was issued to the assessee and the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 148 was passed by the Assessing Officer making addition of Rs.2,62,99,275/- u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act on account of unexplained sources holding that the assessee failed to include saving accounts in balance-sheet, total sales do not include cash deposits in bank accounts and books of account are not audited u/s 44AB. Being aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who also confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer on the ground that the assessee failed to satisfactorily explain the source of deposits in the bank accounts with documentary evidences. Still aggrieved, the assessee is before this Tribunal.
Deepesh and Girish Savla 3 ITA 500, 503 and 504 of 2016 3. At the outset of the hearing, ld. counsel for the assessee contended that the assessee has filed application for admission of additional evidences under Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules stating that the banks provided an additional facility of zero charges on making demand draft from the accounts. The assessee in his good faith and with a view to earn commission income, allowed third parties to deposit cash in his bank accounts and issued demand draft in favour of unknown oil and sugar companies. However, the assessee is now submitting records i.e. register wherein the assessee had maintained date-wise deposit and commission earned thereon, which will prove that the cash deposits are not his undisclosed income but were deposited by various third parties and was immediately withdrawn in the form of demand draft. The learned Counsel for the assessee relying upon relevant judicial pronouncements prayed for admission of these additional evidences stating that same could not be submitted earlier as the assessee was not properly advised in this matter by the earlier counsel. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR relied on the orders of the Revenue Authorities.
We have heard both the parties and perused the orders of lower authorities. Before us, the assessee has filed an application for admission of additional evidences under Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal)
Rules in the form of register wherein the assessee had maintained date-wise deposit and commission earned thereon. The assessee has explained reason for non-furnishing of the same before the Assessing Officer. Looking to the Deepesh and Girish Savla 4 ITA 500, 503 and 504 of 2016 circumstances, we admit the application for additional evidences. Our view is fortified with the ratio laid down in the cases of CIT vs. KUm. Satya Setia (1983) 37 CTR 66 (MP); CIT vs. Gani Bhai Wahab Bhai (1998) 145 CTR 526 (MP) and Rajmoti Industries vs. ITO (1995) 52 ITD 286 (Ahd.). Thus, totality of facts clearly suggests that additional evidences requires deliberation at the level of the Assessing Officer, therefore, in the interest of justice, the assessee’s matter should be reconsidered by the Assessing Officer afresh.
Accordingly, the orders of the Revenue Authorities are set aside and the matter is restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer who will reconsider the relevant documents/submissions in the light of the additional evidences afresh. Assessee would appear without waiting before the Assessing Officer for further necessary action. The Assessing Officer would examine the contention of the assessee from the papers filed before us and then reframe the assessment afresh in terms as indicated hereinabove after affording due opportunity of being heard to the assessee as per law and the assessee is also directed to furnish the evidence/submission, if any, in support of his claim and cooperate before the Assessing Officer in this regard. Thus, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only. & 504/Ind/2016 in case of Girish Savla 5. Both the above appeals are filed by the assessee against the different orders of ld. CIT(A)-II, Bhopal, dated 14.1.2016 for the assessment years 2008-09 & 2011-12 on the following grounds of appeal:
Deepesh and Girish Savla 5 ITA 500, 503 and 504 of 2016 “1. That the order of ld. CIT(A) is bad-in-law, contrary to facts on record and also against the provisions of law, without jurisdiction and void ab-initio and hence liable to be quashed for both the assessment years.
2. That ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that assessee has failed to satisfactorily explain the source of deposit in saving account amounting to Rs.1,30,92,720/- & Rs.63,24,470/- which substantial evidence, respectively, for the assessment years 2008-09 & 2011-12.
That ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that amount of Rs.1,30,92,720/- & Rs.63,24,470/- being amount deposited in saving account should be added to the income of the assessee by considering the same as unexplained investment as per the provision of Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without accepting the explanation offered by the assessee, respectively, for the assessment years 2008-09 & 2011-12.”
Both the parties submitted that facts and issues raised in both these appeals are identical to that of Deepesh Savla (supra) and the decision taken in the case of Deepesh Savla would also be applicable to the case of Girish Savla. Thus, following the finding recorded in the case of Deepesh Savla (supra), the orders of the Revenue Authorities are set aside and the matter is restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer who will reconsider the relevant documents/submissions in the light of the additional evidences afresh. Assessee would appear without waiting before the Assessing Officer for further necessary action. The Assessing Officer would examine the contention of the assessee from the papers filed before us and then reframe the assessment afresh in terms as indicated hereinabove after affording due opportunity of being heard to the assessee as per law and the assessee is also directed to furnish the evidence/submission, if any, in support of his
Deepesh and Girish Savla 6 ITA 500, 503 and 504 of 2016 claim and cooperate before the Assessing Officer in this regard. Thus, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only.
Finally, appeals filed by assessees are allowed for statistical purposes only.
Order was pronounced in the open court on 01.4.2019.