Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI MANISH BORAD
PER MANISH BORAD, AM.
The above captioned appeal is filed at the instance of
assessee pertaining to Assessment Year 2009-10 and is
directed against the orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax
(Appeals)-I (in short ‘Ld.CIT(A)’], Indore dated 15.03.2017 which
is arising out of the order u/s 143(3)/147 of the Income Tax Act
1961(In short the ‘Act’) dated 27.03.2014 framed by ITO-1(2),
Indore.
Bhanwar Singh Chauhan ITA No.442/Ind/2017 2. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal;
“1. Addition of Rs. 23,00,000 uls 68:That the Assessing Officer erred in making addition and CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 23,00,0001- U/S 68 on account: of Loans and Advances given by Sunita and Shakuntala Chauhan to others in the earlier years were received back through cash route during the financial year 2008-2009 and deposited in Union bank of India i.e. Rs. 11,40,000/- and Rs. 11,60,000/-. respectively. The amount of advances received back was of Sunita and ShakuntalaChauhan and not of the assessee hence shall not be added in the income of assessee. Thus, the addition is wrong, illegal and unlawful, looking at the facts of the case and in the eyes of law, hence; needs to be deleted.
Addition of Rs. 49,92,000 uls 68:That the Assessing Officer erred in making addition and CIT(A) erred by confirming the addition of Rs. 49,92,000 U/S 68 as advance given for Purchase of Agriculture Land was received back, the same was advanced by the assessee and his wife, in just preceding previous year dated 05/0112008, The amount which was given in preceding year was only received back during this year, there was no fresh credit. From the total addition of Rs. 25 Lakh pertained to his wife who is joint account holder in the bank therefore she also deposited her 25 Lakh along with her husband. Thus the addition on account of advance received back is illegal, wrong and unlawful and against the facts of the case; hence needs to be deleted”.
At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee made a request
for setting aside all the issues raised in this appeal to the file of
Learned Assessing Officer (In short Ld.A.O) for denovo
Bhanwar Singh Chauhan ITA No.442/Ind/2017 adjudication pleading that the nexus of the alleged additions
made u/s 68 of the Act at Rs.23,00,000/- and Rs.49,92,000/-
with regard to the advances given for the purposes of loan as
well as for the purchase of agricultural land relates to the
preceding financial year’s and the alleged sum were received
back during the financial year 2008-09 i.e. Assessment Year
2009-10. He further pleaded that the statement of affairs and
capital account were placed before the Ld.A.O for preceding
years and statements were also recorded.
Per contra Ld. Departmental Representative though
supported the orders of both the lower authorities, did not
opposed to the request made by Ld. Counsel for the assessee
for setting aside the matter to the file of Ld.A.O.
We have heard rival contentions and perused the records
placed before us.
The assessee is aggrieved with the additions made by the
Ld.A.O which stands confirmed by Ld.CIT(A) relating to the
unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act at Rs.23,00,000/- from
Bhanwar Singh Chauhan ITA No.442/Ind/2017 Mrs. Sunita Chouhan and Shakuntala Chouhan at
Rs.11,40,000/- and Rs.11,60,000/- respectively. Assessee is
also aggrieved with the addition u/s 68 of the Act at
Rs.49,92,000/- made by the Ld.A.O for the alleged amount
received from Shri Bahadur Singh Dabi. Ld. Counsel for the
assessee contended that as regards the amount of
Rs.23,00,000/- received from Mrs. Sunita Chouhan and
Shakuntala Chouhan is concerned, the alleged sum was given
as loan and advance by the assessee in the earlier years and
the same was received back in cash during Financial Year
2008-09. Similarly as regards the alleged addition of
Rs.49,92,000/- made u/s 68 of the Act is concerned, the
amount was given as advance for purchase of agricultural land
on 5.1.2008 jointly by the assessee and his wife. It was
strongly pleaded by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the
alleged cash credits are not fresh cash credit during the year
rather these sums were given by the assessee and his wife in
the preceding years and the alleged sum were received back
during the year. The request for giving one more opportunity to
go before the Ld.A.O for fresh adjudication has been made by 4
Bhanwar Singh Chauhan ITA No.442/Ind/2017 the Ld. Counsel for the assessee which goes unopposed by the
Departmental Representative.
We therefore in the given facts and circumstances of the
case and in the interest of justice, give one more opportunity to
the assessee and accordingly set aside the order of Ld.CIT(A)
and restore the matters raised in Ground No.1 & 2 to the file of
Ld.A.O for denovo adjudication in the light of various
documents, statement of affairs, capital account, statements of
Mrs. Sunita Chouhan, Shakuntala Chouhan and Shri
Bahadur Singh Dabi. Ld.A.O shall also verify the contentions
made by the assessee and thereafter decide the issues
accordingly. Ld. A.O should also carry necessary investigation
to satisfy about the source of agricultural income claimed by
the assessee which has been accumulated since last many
years and the alleged accumulated funds were used to provide
loans and also to provide advance for purchase of agricultural
land. Needless to mention that proper opportunity of being
heard should be given to the assessee.
Bhanwar Singh Chauhan ITA No.442/Ind/2017 8. In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for
statistical purpose.
The order pronounced in the open Court on 27.11.2018.
Sd/- Sd/-
( KUL BHARAT) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �दनांक /Dated : 27 November, 2018 /Dev
Copy to: The Appellant/Respondent/CIT concerned/CIT(A) concerned/ DR, ITAT, Indore/Guard file.
By Order, Asstt.Registrar, I.T.A.T., Indore