SHRI ANIL KUMAR MANAK BOHARA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 929/JPR/2017Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 May 2018AY 2009-105 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee claimed the deposits were from share sales in FY 2007-08 and were reflected in his cash book. The Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(A) to examine the cash book entries for FYs 2007-08 and 2008-09.

What were the facts?

The assessee deposited Rs. 4,77,882/- in his bank account, claiming it was from the sale of shares. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated this as unexplained income as the share sales occurred in a prior financial year. The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's action.

What were the issues?

Whether the cash deposits in the bank account were unexplained income when the assessee claimed they were from prior year share sales reflected in the cash book.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR

Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 929/JP/2017

For Appellant: Shri Ram Swaroop Jajoo (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@
Hearing: 01/05/2018Pronounced: 03/05/2018

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 929/JP/2017 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2009-10 cuke Shri Anil Kumar Manak Bohra The ITO, Vs. E-344B, VKI Area, Ward-4(1), Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ACTPM 0682 M vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent

fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Ram Swaroop Jajoo (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri J.C.Kulhari (JCIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 01/05/2018 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement : 03/05/2018 vkns'k@ ORDER

PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A)-2, Jaipur dated 25.09.2017 for the Assessment Year 2009-10 wherein the assessee has challenged the action of the Assessing Officer in bringing to tax an amount of Rs. 4,77,882/- as unexplained deposits without rejecting his cash book.

2 ITA No. 929/JP/2017 Anil Kumar Manak Bohra vs. ITO

2.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that during the course of original assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee has deposited certain cash in his bank account amounting to Rs. 4,77,882/- which was found unexplained and the same was brought to tax in the hands of the assessee. Thereafter, the matter had travelled up to the Tribunal and the Coordinate Bench vide its order dated 24.07.2015 in ITA No. 790/JP/2012 has set aside the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for the reasons that the assessee had submitted certain evidences before the ld. CIT(A) however, the remand report from the AO was not called for and hence following the principle of natural justice, the matter was set aside to the file of the AO and the assessee was directed to produce all the evidences before the AO in the set aside proceedings.

3.

During the course of set aside proceedings, the AO, from the copy of DEMAT statement filed by the assessee, observed that certain shares were sold in preceding financial year i.e. FY 2007-08 and not during the year under consideration as claimed by the assessee. Further, the details of share trading and copy of vouchers filed by the assessee were also examined by the AO which also proved that all these share transactions pertain to FY 2007-08. Therefore, the claim of the assessee that cash of Rs. 4,77,882/- was on account of sale of shares during the year under consideration was not found acceptable and the same was treated as unexplained cash deposit and brought to tax in the hands of the assessee.

3 ITA No. 929/JP/2017 Anil Kumar Manak Bohra vs. ITO

4.

Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) observed that the details have been examined by the AO and in the absence of any further details being produced by the assessee, the disallowance made by the AO was confirmed.

5.

Now, the assessee in this appeal before us. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR has submitted that the assessee has sold certain shares amounting to Rs. 1,86,794/- during the financial year 2007-08 and his wife Smt. Rita Bohra also sold certain shares for an amount of Rs. 3,33,843/- during the F.Y. 2007-08 relevant assessment year 2008- 09. It was further submitted that the said sum of Rs. 5,20,637/- was kept separately for use as safeguard fund to be used on need basis. It was further submitted that during the year under consideration, out of the said amount of Rs 5,20,637, cash amounting to Rs. 1 lac was deposited in his bank account on 10.04.2008, Rs. 3 lacs on 16.02.2009 and Rs. 77,882/- on 20.03.2009, in all totaling to Rs 4,77,882. It was further submitted that these transactions are duly reflected in the assessee’s cash book and given the fact that the AO has not rejected the cash book, the addition made by him is not warranted and same be directed to be deleted.

6.

Per contra, the ld. DR has relied on the finding of the lower authorities.

7.

We have heard the rival contention and perused the material available on record. Undisputedly, certain shares have been sold by the

4 ITA No. 929/JP/2017 Anil Kumar Manak Bohra vs. ITO

assessee and his wife during the F.Y. 2007-08 relevant to assessment year 2008-09. The assessee has contended that the sale proceeds out of such sale transactions were kept as safeguard fund and later on during the current financial year, an amount of Rs. 477,882/- was deposited on three different occasions in his bank account and the same is duly verifiable from the cash book maintained by him for the F.Ys. 2007-08 and 2008-09. We however find that there is no finding recorded by the AO or the ld. CIT(A) in terms of these transactions reflected in the cash book for the F.Ys. 2007-08 and 2008-09 respectively. We accordingly set aside the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for the limited purpose of examining the entries so recorded in the cash book maintained by the assessee for the two financial years and where these transactions are found to be duly recorded in terms of the receipt of cash and subsequent deposit in the bank account, the assessee may be allowed the necessary relief after verification. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 03/05/2018. Sd/- Sd/- ¼fot; iky jko½ ¼foØe flag ;kno½ (Vijay Pal Rao) (Vikram Singh Yadav) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 03/05/2018. *Santosh आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Shri Anil Kumar Manak Bohra, Jaipur. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward- 4(1), Jaipur. 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT

5 ITA No. 929/JP/2017 Anil Kumar Manak Bohra vs. ITO 4. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT(A) 5. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत. 6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File { ITA No. 929/JP/2017} vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →