Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE
Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL
आदेश / ORDER
PER R.S.SYAL, VP :
These three appeals by the assessee relate to the assessment years 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08.
There is a delay of 84 days in presenting each of the appeals before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an affidavit giving reasons in support of the condonation of delay, with which I am satisfied. As such, the delay is condoned and the appeals are admitted for hearing on merits.
2 ITA Nos.88 to 90/PUN/2019 Pritesh D. Adani
A.Y. 2005-06 :
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee
filed his return declaring total income of Rs.42,220/- which was
processed u/s.143(1) of the Act. Thereafter, re-assessment
proceedings were initiated. The Assessing Officer (AO)
observed that certain amounts were deposited in the bank
account. The assessee submitted that a sum of Rs.75,000/- was
received from his mother, in support of which a confirmation
letter was filed. As regards the other amount of Rs.32,800/-, the
assessee submitted that he received this amount from his
grandfather in three instalments, for which also some
confirmation was filed. Not convinced, the AO made additions
of Rs.75,000/- and Rs.32,800/-. The ld. CIT(A) deleted these
two additions, but directed the AO to assess a sum of
Rs.87,932/- as undisclosed peak capital in the hands of assessee.
Having heard both the sides and gone through the relevant
material on record, it is seen that the assessee gave explanation
about deposits of Rs.75,000/- and Rs.32,800/- received from his
mother and grandfather respectively. Not only that, the assessee
also furnished confirmation letters and the source of money
3 ITA Nos.88 to 90/PUN/2019 Pritesh D. Adani
received by such persons which was given to the assessee.
Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances in the
instant case, I am of the considered opinion that the assessee
successfully explained the source of deposits in the bank to this
extent. This ground is, therefore, allowed.
No sustainable legal argument supported by any cogent
evidence was advanced in support of initiation of re-assessment
proceedings. Such ground, therefore, stands dismissed.
A.Yrs. 2006-07 & 2007-08 :
The facts for the A.Y. 2006-07 are that the AO initiated re-
assessment proceedings in the same manner as for the preceding
year. The assessee submitted the source of deposit by explaining
that a sum of Rs.2,18,000/- was received from Shri P. D. Shah in
FD account and no explanation was tendered for a further sum of
Rs.45,293/-. In addition, the assessee explained the source of
cash deposit of Rs.40,000/- towards gift received from
grandfather. Not convinced, the AO made the additions of
Rs.40,000/- and Rs.2,63,293/- (Rs.2,18,000 + Rs.45,293). The
facts for the A.Y. 2007-08 are that the assessee explained the
source of cash deposit in the bank towards Rs.28,000/- as having
4 ITA Nos.88 to 90/PUN/2019 Pritesh D. Adani
been received from grandfather and furnished no explanation for
cash deposit of Rs.7,783/-. The AO made these two additions.
The ld. CIT(A), for both the years under consideration,
deleted the additions made by the AO. He, however, held that
peak bank balance was to be added, which for the A.Y. 2006-07
was determined at Rs.3,38,994/- and for the A.Y. 2007-08 at
Rs.3,17,621/-. The assessee is aggrieved by the confirmation of
additions to this extent.
Having heard both the sides and gone through the relevant
material on record, it is observed that the assessee gave
explanation about the source of some cash deposits in the bank
account and for others items of deposit, the assessee could not
give any justification. The ld. AR contended that no proper
opportunity was granted by the authorities below for explaining
the source of such cash deposits for both the years. It was,
therefore, prayed that one more opportunity be given. Without
going into the merits and considering the totality of the facts and
circumstances of the extant appeals, I am of the considered
opinion that ends of justice would meet adequately if the
impugned order on this score is set-aside and the matter is
5 ITA Nos.88 to 90/PUN/2019 Pritesh D. Adani
remitted to the file of AO. I order accordingly and direct the AO
to decide the issue afresh on merits of additions after allowing a
reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
As regards the grounds against the initiation of re-
assessment proceedings, the ld. AR did not advance any legally
sustainable arguments backed by any cogent evidence. Such
grounds are, therefore, dismissed.
In the result, the appeal for the A.Y. 2005-06 is partly
allowed and for the later two years are partly allowed for
statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 25th July, 2019.
Sd/- (R.S.SYAL) उपा�य� उपा�य�/ VICE PRESIDENT उपा�य� उपा�य�
पुणे Pune; �दनांक Dated : 25th July, 2019 सतीश
6 ITA Nos.88 to 90/PUN/2019 Pritesh D. Adani
आदेश क� क� क� �ितिलिप क� �ितिलिप �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत अ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order is forwarded to : अ�ेिषत आदेश आदेश आदेश अपीलाथ� / The Appellant; 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent; 2. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / 3. The CIT (Appeals)-2, Kolhapur 4. The Pr.CIT-2, Kolhapur िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे “SMC” / 5. DR ‘SMC’, ITAT, Pune; गाड� फाईल / Guard file. 6. // True copy // आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार
// True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune
Date 1. Draft dictated on 24-07-2019 Sr.PS 2. Draft placed before author 24-07-2019 Sr.PS 3. Draft proposed & placed -- JM before the second member 4. Draft discussed/approved -- JM by Second Member. 5. Approved Draft comes to Sr.PS the Sr.PS/PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS 7. Date of uploading order Sr.PS 8. File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS 9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk 10. Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11. Date of dispatch of Order. *