ITO, WARD-1, BERHAMPUR vs. SRI V.MANOJ KUMAR PATRA, BERHAMPUR

1 ITA No .410/ CTK/ 2016 Asse ssment Year : 20 10- 201 1

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.410/CTK/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-2011

Income Tax officer, Ward-1, Vs. Sri V.Manoj Kuamar Patra, Berhampur. S/O-V Shyam Sundar Patra, Spectrum Monor, 204, 2nd Gandhinagar, line, Berhampur PAN/GIR No.ADAPV 9394 F (Appellant) .. ( Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri A.K.Padhy, AR Revenue by : Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR

Date of Hearing : 15 /02/ 2018 Date of Pronouncement : 28/02/ 2018

O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, JM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the

CIT(A)- 1, Bhubaneswar dated 16.8.2016 for the assessment year 2010-

2011.

justified in deleting the addition of Rs.1,79,77,300/- made by the

Assessing Officer on account of unexplained cash deposits.

from salary and insurance commission and the Return of income was filed

on 29.4.2011 disclosing total income of Rs.2,51,900/- after claiming

2 ITA No .410/ CTK/ 2016 Asse ssment Year : 20 10- 201 1 deduction of Rs.1 lakh under chapter VIA of the Act. Based on the

intimation that the assessee has made cash deposit of Rs.10 lakhs above

in Saving Bank account and also investment in mutual funds of

Rs.2,00,000/-, notices u/s.142(1) and 143(2) of the Act were issued and

the ld A.R. of the assessee appeared and filed details and also the

statement on oath was recorded u/s.131 of the Act.

the assessee has maintained 10 saving bank accounts at different places.

The Assessing Officer obtained the ledger copies of such bank accounts

and noticed that the assessee has made substantial cash deposits and

withdrawals on different dates aggregating to Rs.1,79,77,300/- during the

relevant previous year and was also inter bank transactions through

cheques. The Assessing Officer required the assessee to produce the

books of account for verification. However, the assessee could not

produce the books of account except mentioning that he is only employee

of M/s. Mirco Finance Ltd and the assessee was collecting money from

the public and depositing the same in various schemes of M/s. Micro

Finance Ltd. Further, the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to produce

evidence in support of the amounts collected from the public and the

schemes in which such amounts were deposited and also the withdrawals

which were for payment to the customers. The assessee failed to

produce books of account and satisfactory evidence to substantiate the

contentions and source of bank deposits and the collections from the

3 ITA No .410/ CTK/ 2016 Asse ssment Year : 20 10- 201 1 public on behalf of M/s. Micro Finance Ltd. The Assessing Officer

considered the overall factual aspects and treated the cash deposits in

the bank of Rs.1,79,77,300/- as unexplained cash deposits of the

assessee and taxed the same as income of the assessee and passed order

u/s.143(3) of the Act on 18.3.2010.

before the CIT(A).

also explained that he is an employee and on behalf of Micro Finance Ltd.,

he is collecting money and has been complying the direction of the

finance company. He filed written submission referred at para 4 of the

order and the CIT(A) forwarded the copy of the written submission to the

Assessing Officer for his comments. Whereas the Assessing Officer has

filed the report referred at page 5 of the order. Ld A.R.’s contention that

the assessee has complied with the direction of the CIT(A) and the CIT(A)

having satisfied the same has deleted the addition.

without considering the facts and findings of the Assessing Officer. The

order of the CIT(A) does not satisfy the comments made by the Assessing

Officer and also the CIT(A) has not verified from the facts that the

assessee could not explain before the Assessing Officer the source for

4 ITA No .410/ CTK/ 2016 Asse ssment Year : 20 10- 201 1 redepositing the money with Mirco Finance Ltd and, therefore, prayed for

setting aside the order of the CIT(A).

authorities and materials available on record. The sole matrix of the

disputed issue is with respect to deposits made by the assessee into the

bank account on behalf of Micro Finance Ltd.. Ld D.R. contends that the

CIT(A) having called for the remand report has not considered the

observations raised and appropriate facts were not adjudicated. Whereas

ld A.R. supported his arguments with paper book evidencing the details of

bank statement, copy of cash flow statement and collection receipts and

vouchers of cash receipts. The contention of ld A.R. is that these deposits

made by the assessee from the customers and in return they have been

deposited with Micro Finance Ltd. We, on perusal of the materials placed

before us, found that the assessee does not maintain vouchers. The

facts remain that the statements made in respect of deposits made in the

assessee’s account or paid to Micro Finance Ltd., could not be ascertained

and the explanation of ld A.R. are not satisfactory. Further the findings of

the CIT (A) are only on the Assessing Officer’s report that the

Assessing Officer has only doubted the ledger copy and other documents

filed by the assessee in the paper book and there are various fats, which

have been filed by the assessee and the comments of the Assessing

Officer have to be ascertained. We found that the order passed by the

CIT(A) as envisaged by ld D.R. is not clear and the order is a cryptic

order only. We found that there is strength in the arguments of ld D.R.

5 ITA No .410/ CTK/ 2016 Asse ssment Year : 20 10- 201 1 and, accordingly, in the interest of justice, we set aside the order of the

CIT(A) and remit back the matter to the file of the CIT(A), who shall

verify the material filed before us and pattern of amount received by the

assessee and transaction of deposits from assessee’s account with the

Micro Finance Ltd has to be ascertained and shall pass the order on merit

and the assessee shall co-operate in submitting the details for disposal of

appeal We order accordingly.

purposes.

Order pronounced on 28 /02/2018.

SD/- SD/- (N.S Saini) (Pavan Kumar Gadale) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIALMEMBER Cuttack; Dated 28 /02/2018 B.K.Parida, SPS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : Income Tax officer, Ward-1, Berhampur 2. The Respondent. Sri V.Manoj Kuamar Patra, S/O-V Shyam Sundar Patra, Spectrum 2nd Monor, 204, Gandhinagar, line, Berhampur 3. The CIT(A)-1, Bhubaneswar 4. Pr.CIT-1, Bhubaneswar. 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. //True Copy// BY ORDER,

SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, Cuttack