Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH ‘(SMC
Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap(KZ)]
order : May 22, 2020 ORDER This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A) – 12, Kolkata dated 05.07.2019 and the solitary issue involved therein relates to the addition of Rs. 11,00,000/- made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) on account of the amounts found to be deposited in the bank account of the assessee by treating the same as unexplained.
The assessee in the present case is an individual who is engaged in the business of trading as a retailer. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by him on 19.03.2016 declaring a total income of Rs. 97,250/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the sums of Rs. 7,00,000/- and Rs. 4,00,000/- were claimed to be received by the assessee as advances during the year under consideration from Shri Narayan Sharma and Shri Pannalal Debnath respectively. In response to the notices issued by the AO u/s 133(6) of the Act, both these parties declined of having
Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Pradip Debnath given any such advances to the assessee. The AO therefore treated the said advances as unexplained cash credit and addition of Rs. 11,00,000/- was made by him to the total income of the assessee in the assessment completed u/s 143(3) vide an order dated 27.12.2016.
Against the order passed by the AO u/s 143(3), an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A). During the course of appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A), it was reiterated by the assessee that the advances in question amounting to Rs. 7,00,000/- and Rs. 4,00,000/- were received by him from the concerned two parties in cash against sale of property. From the perusal of the relevant agreements for sale, the Ld. CIT(A) however found that Smt. Bulu Debnath, wife of the assessee, had actually entered into a deal with the said two parities and there was nothing in the said agreement indicating any role of the assessee giving him a right to receive the advances in question in cash. He accordingly confirmed the addition of Rs.11,00,000/- made by the AO by treating the said advances as unexplained. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal.
I have heard the arguments of both the sides on this issue and also perused the relevant material available on record. The ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that advances in question aggregating to Rs.11,00,000/- were received by the wife of the assessee, Smt. Bulu Debnath against sale of her property and the amounts so received were deposited in the joint bank account of the assessee and his wife.
Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Pradip Debnath She has submitted that the said advances were wrongly shown in the balance sheet of the assessee and since the same were received by the wife of the assessee and not the assessee, the concerned parties in reply to the notices issued by the AO u/s 133(6) stated that the advances in question were not paid by them to the assessee. She has contended that there is a sufficient documentary evidence to support and substantiate this claim being made by her and urged that the matter may be sent back to the AO for necessary verification. Keeping in view all the facts of the case and the documentary evidence placed on record, I am inclined to accept this contention of the ld. counsel for the assessee. Even the Ld. DR has not raised any objection for sending the matter back to the AO for proper verification. I therefore set aside the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) on this issue and restore the matter to the file of AO for deciding the same afresh after verifying the claim of the assessee that the advances in question were actually received by his wife, Smt. Bulu Debnath and not by him from the relevant record.
Before parting, it is noted that the order is being pronounced after ninety (90) days of hearing. However, taking note of the extraordinary situation in the light of the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown, the period of lockdown days need to be excluded. For coming to such a conclusion, I rely upon the decision of the Co- ordinate Bench of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. JSW Limited in & 6103/Mum/2018, Assessment Year 2013-14, order dt. 14th May, 2020.
Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Pradip Debnath
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 22nd May, 2020.