INCOME TAX OFFICER, THIRUVALLUR vs. JAI PLASTIC INDUSTRIES, TIRUTTANI

:-3-: ITA. No:3077/Chny/2024 consultation with the tax consultant I’ve decided to create a partnership firm, prepared the deed and applied for PAN accordingly in the name and style of "M/S Jai Plastic Industries". However the plan to do the business in the name of firm was subsequently dropped after reaching out with other Tax consultants and well-wishers who have certain fair idea about doing the business and I've Started the business in my individual capacity with the same name (Jai Plastic Industries) as proprietary concern.

I have a bank accounts in the name of Jai Plastic Industries in the Andhra Bank as proprietary concern from a very long period. When the bank has asked me to update KYC Details, I have wrongly given the Firm PAN instead of my Individual PAN. As a result of which my bank accounts which was being operated by me in my individual capacity as a proprietary concern was wrongly linked with the firm PAN. There was no business carried in the name of the firm since its inception.

The cash deposits as mentioned in the notice is not correct and the deposits made are out of Cash sales and Collection from debtors which was received by me in my individual capacity. The cash sales were offered as my revenue in my individual capacity while filing my Income Tax Return in my individual capacity (PAN: ALWPG8305K).

Along with Jai Plastic Industries, I am running 2 more businesses in my individual capacity in the name of "Sri Lakshmi Tyres" and "VM Tomato" the income of which was also admitted while filing my Return of Income.

Also I have engaged in operating Two Heavy Goods Vehicles and the corresponding income was offered u/s 44AE. The entire business was carried out by me in my individual capacity and the Transactions were made in the bank accounts was wrongly linked with my Fim PAN.

:-4-: ITA. No:3077/Chny/2024 As the income was offered by me in my individual capacity and the cash was also deposited into the bank accounts which was wrongly linked with my firm PAN, I kindly request your good self to not to treat this transaction as Income escaped from Assessment. This was unfortunately a case of human error where I have given the Firm PAN which was never used instead of my individual PAN.”

3.1 The AO was not convinced with the reply of assessee and found that there is difference of Rs.1,97,90,932/- between the total deposit and turn over and cash deposit of Rs.1,82,89,100/- was unexplained. Therefore, the AO passed order u/s.148A(d) of the Act on 30.03.2013 and notice u/s.148 was issued. The assessee had not filed the return of income in response to the notice. Though sufficient opportunities were given, assessee had not filed the return of income. Therefore the AO completed the assessment based on the information available with the Department by holding that sales of Jai Plastic Industries (firm) was suppressed to the tune of Rs.2,77,23,182/-. Therefore, the net profit of the assessee is taken at Rs.2,45,60,340/- after reducing the net loss declared by the Jai Plastic Industries(Prop. Gutha Venkatesulu) of Rs.31,62,842/- and added to the total income as unexplained business income of the assessee by passing an order U/s.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s144B of the Act dated 01.03.2024.

:-5-: ITA. No:3077/Chny/2024 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A). Before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee reiterated the fact that the PAN of the firm which was never carried out any business was wrongly provided to the bankers while updating the KYC and hence these transactions are not related to the firm – Jai plastic Industries. Further, the assessee filed a letter issued by the bank confirming that the PAN of the Firm is mapped to the bank account of the proprietorship concern of G.Venkatesulu - Jai plastic Industries and later it is corrected. Further, the assessee also furnished the income tax return filed u/s.139 of the Act in the individual capacity by incorporating all these bank transactions. The assessee also furnished the separate Trading, profit and loss account and balance sheet of all the proprietary concerns managed by him.

4.1 On perusal of the above submissions, the Ld.CIT(A) deleted the additions made by the AO stating that these transactions are to be considered only in individual capacity of Mr.G.Venkatesulu, by holding as under : “7. During the course of appellate proceedings, the submission of the appellant is considered and found that the submissions of the appellant are elaborate and the banker has also certified that the deposits in the said bank account pertained to the appellant’s prop concern as the same were undertaken in its individual capacity. Now once this is clarified by the :-6-: ITA. No:3077/Chny/2024 bank that the deposits in the bank pertain to the appellant’s business conducted in individual capacity the question as to why the entire deposits were not added/considered by the appellant in its individual ITR can be questioned only in the case of individual’s ITR. These transactions once certified by the bank to the pertaining to the appellant’s individual business cannot be linked or attributed to the partnership firm’s Pan in view of the above and the addition made by the AO of Rs.2,77,23,1820/- is hereby deleted.”

6. The Ld.DR stated that the Ld.CIT(A) has erred deleting the addition of Rs.2,45,60,340/- made under unexplained business income. The Ld.CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the AO has correctly computed the addition on account of suppressed sales after due verification of bank statements and submissions of the assessee. Therefore, the Ld.DR prayed to set aside the order of Ld.CIT(A) by confirming the order of AO.

:-7-: ITA. No:3077/Chny/2024 His PAN is ALWPG8305K. He filed his Return of Income for AY 2019- 20 on 19.03.2020 by declaring a Total Income of Rs.4,10,770/- and paid a tax of Rs 34,958/-. Mr.Gutha Venkatesulu opened two Bank Accounts in Andhra Bank, Tiruttani Branch, Tamilnadu (currently Union Bank of India) in the Trade Name of Jai Plastic Industries. The details of the bank account are as follows, Name of the Bank: Union Bank of India (erstwhile Andhra Bank) Branch: Tiruttani Account No.: 21 1311100002050 Type of Account: Current Account

Account No.: 211313100000566 Type of Account: Cash Credit Account The bank account was meant to operate business transactions of trade in plastics business under the tradename of Jai Plastic Industries. However, during the updation of KYC in the said bank account Mr.Gutha Venkatesulu provided the PAN as "AANFJ3535G" instead of his own PAN which is ALWPG8305K. PAN: AANFJ3535G belongs to the appellant-firm, Jai Plastic Industries Tyres, which was a partnership firm opened by Mr.Gutha Venkatesulu as a partner but the firm never carried on any business.

:-8-: ITA. No:3077/Chny/2024 7.1 During the assessment proceedings, the assessee furnished the following information: S.No. Particulars Ackt.No. and date of submission 1 ITR Acknowledgement Computation Acknowledgement No. Financial Statements 915892761260124 Dt: 26-01-2024 Acknowledgement No. 2 Letter from Bank for wrong PAN Linking All Bank Statements 123039531230224 GST Registration Certificate GST Returns IEC Certificate Dt: 26-01-2024 Purchase Bills Further, the ld.AR stated that the Ld. CIT (A), properly appreciated the facts of the case which the Ld. AO failed to comprehensively understand. The assessee is a partnership firm but the firm is not carrying on any business. One of the partners Sri G. Venkatesulu is carrying on multiple businesses in his own hands. The details of the business are as follows: Sri Lakshmi Tyres (MRF Tyre Dealership) Jai Plastics Industries VM Tomato Business Transport Business A copy of financial statements of Mr G. Venkatesulu for FY 2018-19 is enclosed as a part of the paperbook page No.23 to 46.

:-9-: ITA. No:3077/Chny/2024 7.2 Further, the ld.AR submitted that the AO made the addition in his Assessment Order on the following basis. S.No Particulars Amount Rs. 1 Aggregate Credits (Not Cash Deposits) in Current A/c. No.211311100002050 47,60,000 C.C Account No.211313100000566 4,09,37,631 2 Sub-Total of Aggregate Credits 4,56,97,631 3 Turnover shown in P&L Account of Jai Plastic 1,79,74,449 Industries 4 Business Loss admitted in Return of income 31,62,842 5 Net Addition determined by AO (5=2-3-4) 2,45,60,340 The AO failed to appreciate that other credits represent business transactions which could either be income which were already taxed or income which will be taxed in future years (advances received). The AO simply computed the addition without due verification of the facts of the case. The Ld.AR prayed to uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi who deleted the addition made by the Ld. AO, NaFAC, Delhi in the hands of the partnership firm.

7.3 Further, the Ld.AR relied on the following case laws:- (i) The Surat Bench of ITAT have held that addition cannot be made when cash deposits were already offered to tax in other's hands. In Vasant Traders Vs Income Tax Officer, the Surat bench of the ITAT held as follows, 9. We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties and gone through the order of lower authorities carefully. We find that the Assessing

:-10-: ITA. No:3077/Chny/2024 Officer made the addition on the basis of information that bank account No. 20102501515 contains the PAN of Vasant Traders (irm). We find that during assessment, the assessee submitted that the partnership irm stand closed on 01. 04. 2008. The er-partner of assessee-firm filed his affidavit and contended that original dissolution deed in not traceable as more than 10 years have passed. The Assessing Officer insisted for producing original dissolution deed. In the absence of dissolution deed, the Assessing Officer treated the transaction in the bank account as unexplained cash credit. The ld CITA) confirmed the action of assessing officer by taking view that source of deposits in the bank account is unexplained as the assessee ailed to discharge his onus to explain the nature and source. We find that before Assessing Officer as well as ld. CIT(A), the assessee categorically contended that in bank account of proprietorship. the PAN of ersrwhile partnership firm was inadvertently migrated at the time of data migration. The assessee in the statement of fact also categorically contended that such PAN of firm was wrongly mentioned by its banker. We find that banker of assessee has given certified that while migrating the data of PAN was inadvertently mentioned as AAEFV7806M instead of PAN of proprietary concern of Mr. Dilipbhai Vasantlal Sheth. We find that such evidence was furnished by assessee before Ld.CIT(4). No verification of fact was conducted by Ld CIT(A) either of their own or through Assessing Officer. On perusal of books of account of proprietary concern of Dilipbhai Vasantlal Sheth. we find that such bank account was duly disclosed in the audit report and all the transactions are considered by while filing return of income in the proprietary concern. Thus, we find that the Assessing Officer was not justified in making addition of Rs. 1.27 crore without verification of all facts. This ground of assessee's appeal is allowed. Considering the fact that we have allowed the appeal of assessee on primary submissions of ld AR for the assessee, hence adjudication on alternative submissions have become academic. (ii) In ITO Vs Bhagwan Das and Sons, the Jodhpur bench of the ITAT held as follows, “The assessee firm has also placed on record the copy of the return of income of Mrs. Kanta Devi Nagda, Proprietor of "M/s. Bhagwan Das and Sons" having PAN-AASPN3597R. In the said return of income so fled there is specific mention regarding the deposit of cash in the bank account no. 2l2. The copy of that return of income has already referred by the ld. CIT(A) vide page 7 of this order. The assessee has also placed on record the copy of the assessment order in the case of Mrs. Kanta Devi Nagda for the A. Y. 2017-18

:-11-: ITA. No:3077/Chny/2024 assessed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 23. 05.2023 wherein the issue of cash deposit for an amount of Rs. 76,54,400/- was the material issue and the ld. AO in that case has accepted that deposit in the bank account maintained by that assessee having PAN AASPN3795R is arising out of the cash sales made by that assessee and thus, the issue for which the addition made by the ld. A0 was deleted based on these set of facts by the ld. CIT(A). Based on these set of facts the bench noted the decision of the ld. CIT(A) is after careful persuasion of the records and it is also a rule that the same income cannot be (axed in the hands of the tw0 person, when in the case of Mrs. Kanta Devi Nagda the deposit of cash into the same bank account has been considered by the said assessee A0 there is no need to again taxed the assessee firm which is dissolved in the year 2012 as unexplained cash deposit. Ergo, we do not find any merits in the grounds of the appeal of the revenue, and we do not find any infirmity in the detailed finding of the ld. CIT(A)”.

(iii) In Kamakshiben Mayashankar Vyas Vs Income Tax Officer, the Ahmedabad Bench of the ITAT held as follows.

6.2 In our considered view that the AO did not make necessary inquiries with the PAN issuing authority (UTI to ascertain whether the second PAN was inadvertently issued as a duplicate or whether steps were taken to cancel the second PAN The appellant's consistent fling of returns under the original PAN and the payment of penalties for holding two PANs without contesting reflects an effort to comply with the provisions of the Act rather than an intent to conceal any income. Furthermore. it was the duty of the AO to verify the return filed under the original PAN and consider the appellant's submissions regarding the regular business operations and the accounting of cash deposits in the audited books of accounts. This omission has led to unsustainable assessment that fails to consider the complete factual matrix of the appellant's case 6.3. In light of these findings, it is apparent that the addition under Section 69A of the Act was made without proper examination of the appellant's books of account and relevant financial records.

(iv) In Kishan Singh & Associates Vs Income-Tax Officer, the Delhi Bench of the ITAT held as follows. “5. I have heard rival contentions of the parties and perused the material available on records. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the assessee that the assessee is a partnership firm, that has already stood dissolved. Hence, the impugned assessment order has been framed against the non-existent entity. l find that the learned CIT(Appeals) did not accept the claim of assessee regarding dissolution of firm on the ground that PAN No. AAGFK8991A was allotted subsequently. after elapse of 17 months. However, the case of assessee is that bank account in question is being held and operated by Ms. Aarti Chauhan in her individual capacity. Learned DR could not controvert the fact that Ms. Aarti Chauhan has duly owned up the bank account. In my considered view this vital fact escaped the attention of learned CIT (Appeals). I therefore, looking to the totality of facts hereby direct the AO to delete the impugned addition. However, Revenue would be at liberty to assess the income at right hand, if so, permitted by law. Appeal of assessee is allowed in the terms indicated herein above.”

(v) In Parvez Peerpasha Inamdar Vs Pr. CIT - 3, ITA No.144/PUN2021. the Pune bench of the ITAT held as follows: “3. We have heard the rival submissions and gone through the relevant material on record. It is seen that the only reason taken note of by the ld PCIT

:-13-: ITA. No:3077/Chny/2024 for revising the assessment order is that the assessee had deposited Rs. 92. 25 lakh in his savings bank account which was not properly examined by the AO. The assessee categorically submitted before the A0 that the cash did not pertain to him but to the Trust, of which he was a trustee and the bank had wrongly given PAN particulars of the assessee, which was further substantiated by the certificate from the concerned bank. Similar submission was also advanced before the ld. PCIT as well. The ld AR has placed on record a copy of the assessment order passed in the case of Everest Education Society for the year under consideration in which cognizance has been taken of the cash amounting to Rs. 92.25 lakh deposited in the bank account of Everest Education Society. Further, the A0 completed the assessment in the hands of the trust making an addition ws.69A amounting to Rs.92,35,600/- on that score. From the above narration of the events, it is clear that the cash shown to have been deposited in assessee's bank account, in fact, pertained to Everest Education Society of which the assessee was a Trustee. The bank wrongly updated the PAN particulars of the assessee instead of Everest Education Society. This indicates that the AO was justified in not making the addition of Rs.92.25 lakh and the assessment order was neither erroneous prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. We, therefore, set-aside the impugned order.”

7.4 In light of the above case laws which are identical to the facts of the assessee decided in favour of the assessee the addition made by the AO is not proper in law and hence rightfully deleted by the Ld.CIT(A) and prayed for confirming the same.

8.1 We note that the identical issue was decided by this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the A.Y. 2018-19 in favour of the assessee in dated 17.01.2025.

8.2 In the present facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the transactions of the Individual cannot be brought to tax in the hands of the firm. This view of ours is supported by the following decisions relied by the assessee. - Vasant Traders Vs Income Tax Officer, the Surat bench.

:-15-: ITA. No:3077/Chny/2024 - ITO Vs Bhagwan Das and Sons, the Jodhpur bench. - Kamakshiben Mayashankar Vyas Vs Income Tax Officer, the Ahmedabad Bench. - Kishan Singh & Associates Vs Income-Tax Officer, ITA No. 1688/DEL/2021 the Delhi Bench Parvez Peerpasha Inamdar Vs Pr. CIT - 3, ITA - No.144/PUN/2021. The Pune bench of the ITAT held as follows: “3. We have heard the rival submissions and gone through the relevant material on record. It is seen that the only reason taken note of by the ld PCIT for revising the assessment order is that the assessee had deposited Rs. 92.25 lakh in his savings bank account which was not properly examined by the AO. The assessee categorically submitted before the A0 that the cash did not pertain to him but to the Trust, of which he was a trustee and the bank had wrongly given PAN particulars of the assessee, which was further substantiated by the certificate from the concerned bank. Similar submission was also advanced before the ld. PCIT as well. The ld AR has placed on record a copy of the assessment order passed in the case of Everest Education Society for the year under consideration in which cognizance has been taken of the cash amounting to Rs. 92.25 lakh deposited in the bank account of Everest Education Society. Further, the A0 completed the assessment in the hands of the trust making an addition ws.69A amounting to Rs.92,35,600/- on that score. From the above narration of the events, it is clear that the cash shown to have been deposited in assessee's bank account, in fact, pertained to Everest Education Society of which the assessee was a Trustee. The bank wrongly updated the PAN particulars of the assessee instead of Everest Education Society. This indicates that the AO was justified in not making the addition of Rs.92.25 lakh and the assessment order was neither erroneous prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. We, therefore, set-aside the impugned order.”

8.3 Further, on perusal of the paper book furnished by the assessee, we find that the assessee has carried out the business in the name “Jai Plastic Industries” in his individual capacity only but :-16-: ITA. No:3077/Chny/2024 not in the name of the firm. Further, in support of the claim of the assessee that the business is carried out in the individual capacity, furnished the evidence of GST registration certificate, GST returns, Form 26AS, IEC from DGFT, purchase bills apart from submitting the detailed letter from the banker.

8.4 In the present factual matrix and by respectfully following the judicial precedents(supra), we do not find infirmity in the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in allowing the appeal of the assessee. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the transactions wrongly reported with the PAN of the Firm instead of individual PAN cannot be assessed as income / turnover of the firm(assessee) and hence we uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A) by dismissing the appeal of the revenue.