RAGHUNATH BHIKU KAND,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 12 (4),, PUNE

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे �यायपीठ “एक-सद�य मामला” पुणे म� IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE �ी डी. क�णाकरा राव, लेखा सद�य के सम� BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1171/PUN/2019 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Raghunath Bhiku Kand, Prop. Jai Chetan Warehousing, Ramnagar, A/p Lonikand, Taluka Haveli, Pune-412207. अपीलाथ�/Appellant PAN : BMVPK4626A …. Vs. ITO, Ward-12(4), …. ��थ� / Respondent Pune. अपीलाथ� क� ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Pramod Shingate ��थ� की ओर से / Respondent by : Shri S. P. Walimbe सुनवाई क� तारीख / घोषणा क� तारीख / Date of Hearing : 16.12.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 16.12.2019 आदेश / ORDER PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM : This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)-5, Pune dated 20.05.2019 for the Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The effective ground raised by the assessee is as under :- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. A.O. erred in making the addition of Rs.4,60,000/- being cash deposited in bank account as unexplained cash credit u/s.68. It is your appellant’s contention that appellant is in possession of all the evidences in support of this cash credits and same shall be considered, however lower authorities have rejected the same.” 3. Briefly explaining the background facts, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is engaged in the business of renting of property and earned income against the rents. During the assessment

-2- ITA No.1171/PUN/2019 proceedings, the assessee is found depositing cash of Rs.3 lakhs on 12.05.2012 in two instalments and depositing another cash of Rs.1.60 lakhs on 17.07.2012 aggregated to Rs.4.60 lakhs in the bank account of Mahanagar Co-op. Bank Ltd. The sources of this cash deposits of Rs.4.60 lakhs is an issue during the assessment proceedings. On findings, the failure to furnish the details regarding the sources of cash deposits and assessee’s failure to discharge the onus, the Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of section 68 of the Act and made addition accordingly. 4. On this issue, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee made various submissions and the submissions revolved around the agricultural income, 7/12 extracts and assessee’s failure to disclose the transaction of sale of sugarcane and related agricultural product to one Shri Pramod Pandey. There was occasion for Revenue to record the statement from Shri Pandey regarding the payment of Rs.4.60 lakhs. Considering the same, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer as per discussion given in para 10 and its subparagraphs of his order. 5. Aggrieved with the same, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal with the above extracted ground. 6. Before me, at the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessment was made hurriedly without considering the proper facts of the transactions of sale of agricultural produce to Shri Pandey. The ld. Counsel for the assessee was ready to produce Shri Pandey but Assessing

-3- ITA No.1171/PUN/2019 Officer was not examined him. The ld. Counsel made a statement at Bar in favour of producing Shri Pandey before the Assessing Officer/CIT(A) if an opportunity granted to the assessee. 7. Referring to the remand report, ld. Counsel submitted that requisite enquiry was not conducted by the Assessing Officer. Considering the above and procedural deficiency, ld. Counsel for the assessee pleaded for remanding the issue once again to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. 8. On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue heavily relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). The ld. DR submitted that the assessee is opinion for delaying the proceedings and waiting till the end of the due dates. 9. Heard both the sides on this limited issue of remanding the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. It is the limited prayer of the assessee that the said sum of Rs.4.60 lakhs was received by Shri Pramod Pandey and Shri Pandey is required to be examined if there is any doubt about the transactions. Referring to page 16 and its annexures of the Paper Book, ld. Counsel submitted that Shri Pandey has already confirmed the transaction of payment of the said cash which is deposited in the bank account. Further, I have noticed from the Paper Book that there is no clarity on the furnishing of all the 22 pages of the Paper Book and others before the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A).

-4- ITA No.1171/PUN/2019 10. Considering the above discrepancies, I find it is appropriate to remand the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in accordance with interest of administration of justice. Thus, entire issue is remanded to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Assessing Officer shall grant reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with set principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 16th day of December, 2019. Sd/- (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) लेखा सद� / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; �दनांक Dated : 16th December, 2019. Sujeet आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order is forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant; 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent; 2. 3. The CIT(A)-5, Pune; 4. The Pr. CIT-4, Pune; िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे “एक-सद�य मामला” / 5. DR ‘SMC’, ITAT, Pune; गाड� फाईल / Guard file. 6. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स�यािपत �ित //True Copy// Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune