Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC
Before: SHRI BHAGCHANDvk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 439/JP/2017
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR Jh Hkkxpan] ys[kk lnL;] ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 439/JP/2017 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13 cuke Dheeraj Goyal, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Maina Mansion, A-27, Vallabh Ward 1(1), Nagar, Kota. Kota. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AGYPG 1854 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Saurabh Harsh(Adv) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Poonam Roy (DCIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 22/11/2017 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 23/11/2017 vkns'k@ ORDER
PER: BHAGCHAND, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee emanates from the order of the ld. CIT(A),Kota dated 16/03/2017 for the A.Y. 2012-13. The only issue involved in the appeal is sustaining the addition of Rs. 2,85,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit U/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act). 2. The assessee derives income from dealer of various kinds of agricultural produce, general kirana items and service provider of HDFC
ITA 439/JP/2017_ 2 Dheeraj Goyal Vs. ITO
bank. During the year under consideration, the assessee has shown
receipt of Rs. 85,000/- from Smt. Asha Jain and Rs. 2,00,000/- from Shri
Raju. The Assessing Officer observed that the information submitted
regarding the lenders was not sufficient, therefore, the assessee was not
able to discharge the onus casted upon him to establish the identity of the
persons, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions. It was
also noted by the A.O. that some unverifiable information was filed in the
case of Shri Raju Rathore and a ledger in the name of Raju Kelwara was
shown as confirmation. The Assessing Officer observed the veracity and
capacity of the lender remained doubtful.
The ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer by
holding that the appellant has not fully discharged his initial burden of
proving the genuineness of the credits.
Now the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT. While pleading on
behalf of the assessee, the ld AR has submitted that confirmation from
Shri Raju alongwith PAN but the authorities below has not considered the
same. He also submitted that Smt. Asha Jain is absconding with her
husband and other family members in Bapawar case, wherein the
assessee has also been falsely implicated by police investigation team
without there being any evidence whatsoever. Therefore, the PAN of Smt.
Asha Jain could not be filed. Ld. AR further submitted that the
ITA 439/JP/2017_ 3 Dheeraj Goyal Vs. ITO
confirmation of Shri Raju Rathore was furnished to the Assessing Officer
alongwith PAN. He also pleaded that M/s Seth ML Goyal & Sons is
proprietory concern of Dheeraj Goyal, which is evident from the
submissions made before the ld. CIT(A) wherein it has been clearly
mentioned that M/s Seth ML Goyal & Sons is proprietory concern of
Dheeraj Goyal.
On the other hand, the ld DR has relied on the orders of the
authorities below.
I have heard both the sides on this issue. The assessee has
submitted copy of ledger account of Shri Raju Kelwara in the books of M/s
Seth ML Goyal & Sons (Kalwara Branch), which is a branch of proprietory
concern of Dheeraj Goyal (assessee), wherein the credit has been shown
from G.R.K. Feeds through the journal entry which has been also
transferred through Journal to M/s Seth M.L. Goyal & Sons (H.O.) (evident
from page No. 5.) In the head of ledger account, this amount has been
credited in the name of Raju Kalwara and payments have been made
through HDFC Bank account No. 1672640000175 by cheque No. 0222217
on 03/9/2011. Thus the account was squired up during the relevant
financial year. The PAN number given in confirmation is BEHPR 8841A.
Mr. Raju Rathore has confirmed that he had received the amount back on
03/9/2011. The revenue authorities have not understood the entries in
ITA 439/JP/2017_ 4 Dheeraj Goyal Vs. ITO right perspective. Therefore, considering all these aspects, I am of the
view that the assessee was able to discharge the onus with regard to this
amount. However, the assessee has not submitted any document in
support of credit of Rs. 85,000/- in the name of Smt. Asha Jain, therefore,
the addition is sustained to that extent. The assessee gets relief of Rs. 2,00,000/-.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 23/11/2017. Sd/- ¼Hkkxpan½ (BHAGCHAND) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 23rd November, 2017 *Ranjan आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Shri Dheeraj Goyal, Kota. 1. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ITO, Ward 1(1), Kota. 2. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT 3. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The CIT(A) 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 439/JP/2017) 6.
vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,
सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत