Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
Before: S/SHRI N.S SAINI & PAVAN KUMAR GADALE
1 ITA No. 482/CT K/ 2017 Asse ssment Year : 20 13- 201 4
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
BEFORE S/SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No. 482/CTK/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-2014
Income Tax officer, Khurda Vs. Shri Subransu Sekhar Ward, Khurda Prusty, C/O. Prusty Trading co., Khandapada Road, Nayagarh. PAN/GIR No.AHHPP 9528 J (Appellant) .. ( Respondent)
Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR
Date of Hearing : 17/05/ 2018 Date of Pronouncement : 17 /05/ 2018
O R D E R Per N.S.Saini, AM This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of the
CIT(A)- 1 Bhubaneswar dated 24.8.2017 for the assessment year 2013-
14.
None appeared on behalf of the respondent-assessee when the case
was called for hearing.
The sole issue involved in this appeal is that the CIT(A) erred in
deleting the addition of Rs.52,56,250/- towards unexplained investment
accepting the remand report of the Assessing Officer.
2 ITA No. 482/CT K/ 2017 Asse ssment Year : 20 13- 201 4 4. The facts in brief are that during the course of assessment
proceedings, the assessee failed to put in appearance despite giving
various opportunities. Therefore, the Assessing Officer completed the
assessment under section 144 of the Act.
The Assessing Officer found that the assessee has made cash
deposit of Rs.1,10,35,620/- on various dates during the previous year in
Account No.911010047667785 maintained with Axis Bank, Nayagarh and
cash deposit of Rs.2,09,000/- in State Bank of India, Nayagarh, ADB
aggregating to Rs.1,12,44,620/-. As the assessee failed to appear before
the Assessing Officer to explain the cash deposits, the Assessing officer
after analysing the cash deposits and withdrawals, made an addition of
Rs.52,56,250/- as unexplained investment u/s.69 of the Act.
On appeal, before the CIT(A), the assessee filed a written
submission with numerous documents and contended that the cash
deposits in his bank accounts represented the sale proceeds of the firm
M/s. Annapurna Distributors and the major portion of the cash deposits in
the assessee’s bank accounts had been subsequently transferred to the
accounts of the firm by way of transfer. Therefore, the CIT(A) called for a
remand report from the Assessing Officer for examination and report in
compliance with Rule 46A of I.T.Rules. The Assessing Officer submitted
his report vide letter dated 4.8.2017. The copy of the remand report was
given to the assessee for his response and the assessee filed written
submission on the remand report.
3 ITA No. 482/CT K/ 2017 Asse ssment Year : 20 13- 201 4 7. After considering the remand report of the Assessing officer and the
written submission of the assessee on the remand report, the CIT(A)
deleted the addition by observing as under:
“I have perused the facts and materials on record, the remand report submitted by the AO and also the written response of the assessee to the remand report. From the remand report, it is clear that the assessee has been able to establish that the cash deposits in his bank accounts represented cash collections from the debtors of the firm M/s. Annapurna Distributors wherein the assessee is a partner. The finding of the AO in this regard is quite clear after examination of the relevant documents and books of account of the assessee firm. The only objection of the AO is that for the amounts deposited by the assessee in the accounts of the firm, the firm has not issued any receipts since in the course of remand proceeding, no such receipts could be produced by the assessee for verification. This objection of the AO is not quite relevant and largely inconsequential. The fact as has been reported by the AO is that the cash deposits in the accounts of the assessee have come from the sale proceeds of the assessee firm. This being so, the amount of impugned deposit of Rs.52,56,250/- cannot be treated as income of the assessee. In this view of the matter, the addition of Rs.52,56,250/- is deleted.”
Before us, ld D.R. could not controvert the finding of fact given by
the CIT(A) that the only objection of the AO is that for the amounts
deposited by the assessee in the accounts of the firm, the firm has not
issued any receipts since in the course of remand proceeding, no such
receipts could be produced by the assessee for verification. This objection
of the AO is not quite relevant and largely inconsequential. The fact as
has been reported by the AO is that the cash deposits in the accounts of
the assessee have come from the sale proceeds of the assessee firm. This
being so, the amount of impugned deposit of Rs.52,56,250/- cannot be
treated as income of the assessee.
4 ITA No. 482/CT K/ 2017 Asse ssment Year : 20 13- 201 4 9. We also find that the CIT(A) has deleted the addition after calling a
remand report from the Assessing Officer. Hence, we do not find any
infirmity in the order of the CIT(A), which is hereby confirmed and Ground
of appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced on 17/05/2018. Sd/- sd/- (Pavan Kumar Gadale) (N.S Saini) JUDICIALMEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 17 /05/2018 B.K.Parida, SPS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : Income Tax officer, Khurda Ward, Khurda 2. Respondent. Shri Subransu Sekhar The Prusty, C/O. Prusty Trading co., Khandapada Road, Nayagarh 3. The CIT(A)-1, Bhubaneswar 4. Pr.CIT-1, Bhubaneswar BY ORDER, 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. //True Copy// SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, Cuttack