PRADEEPKUMAR SALEKCHAND AGARWAL,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11 (1), PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 591/PUN/2018Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 December 2018AY 2011-125 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee did not agree to the addition before the AO, contrary to the CIT(Appeals)'s finding. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee declared agricultural income, but the Assessing Officer (AO) found discrepancies in the transactions, suggesting a cash-for-cheque modus operandi. The AO made an addition of Rs. 15,25,000/- to the declared income.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee had agreed to the addition made by the Assessing Officer, and if the CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming the addition based on an alleged agreement.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 133(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL

For Appellant: Shri B.C. Malakar, Shri M.K. Verma
Hearing: 12.12.2018Pronounced: 13.12.2018

आदेश / ORDER

PER R.S. SYAL, VP :

This appeal by the assessee arises out of the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(Appeals)-7, Pune on 20.06.2017 in relation to the assessment year 2011-12.

2 ITA No. 591/PUN/2018 A.Y.2011-12

2.

Briefly stated the relevant facts of the case are that the assessee

declared agricultural income of Rs.21,88,928/-. The Assessing Officer

requested the assessee to file certain details, as have been extracted at

page 2 of the assessment order. The assessee could file only some of the

details. The Assessing Officer issued letters u/s. 133(6) of the Income

Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) calling information

from the persons to whom assessee claimed to have sold the

agricultural produce. Replies were received along with bank account

statements. On perusal of such details, it was found that corresponding

cash deposits were made in the bank accounts preceding a day or two

of the issue of cheques to the assessee. This matter was discussed by

the AO with the ld. AR on 26.03.2014. The Assessing Officer has

reproduced the order sheet entry dated 26.03.2014 in the assessment

order. Considering these facts, the Assessing Officer made an addition

of Rs.15,25,000/- which was claimed by assessee as agricultural

income to that extent.

3.

The ld. CIT(Appeals) in an ex-parte order confirmed the addition

noticing that the assessee agreed to the addition before the Assessing

Officer vide order sheet entry dated 26.03.2014. The assessee has

approached the Tribunal against the finding recorded by the ld. CIT

(Appeals) in the impugned order.

4.

I have heard both the parties and perused the relevant material

available on record. The first thing to be decided is if the assessee

agreed for the addition before the AO. The ld. CIT(A) has referred to the

3 ITA No. 591/PUN/2018 A.Y.2011-12

order sheet entry dated 26.03.2014 for reaching the conclusion against

the assessee, which is reproduced as under:-

“26.03.2014 Shri Pradeep Salekchand Agarwal, the assessee alongwith Shri Rajendra Dave the accountant of the proprietary concern of the assessee appeared. The information received from the entities, income from which has been claimed as agricultural income by the assessee is handed over to the assessee, details are as under: i) Sai Samarth Fruit Company- Mr. Ashwani Nanware ii) Sai Samarth Floritech- Mr. Kiran Nanaware iii) Trimurti Pushpa Bhandar- Do- iv) Pandit Motiram Ghuge- Pandit Ghuge

On perusal of the information so supplied from entities as above, it is seen that as per the bank statements supplied there are corresponding cash deposits immediately preceding a day or two. Accordingly, the same was informed and an opportunity for cross examination/verify the said transactions, presumably appearing to be the ones of deposing cash and receiving the money through cheque has been afforded. Such transactions are tabulated as under: Date Transaction Amount Sai Samarth Floritech 07.09.2010 Cash Deposit Rs.2,00,000/- 07.09.2010 Pradeep Agarwal Rs.2,00,000/- 24.02.2011 Cash Deposit Rs.4,25,000/- 24.02.2011 Pradeep Agarwal Rs.4,25,000/- Trimurti Pushpa Bhandar 20.08.2010 Cash Deposit Rs.2,00,000/- 21.08.2010 Pradeep Agarwal Rs.1,00,000/- 21.08.2010 Mahesh Agarwal Rs.1,00,000/- 27.08.2010 Cash deposit Rs.3,00,000/- 27.08.2010 P.S. Agarwal Rs.2,00,000/- P. Motiram Ghuge 04.03.2011 Cash deposit Rs.2,00,000/- 07.03.2011 Cash deposit Rs.3,00,000/- 08.03.2011 M.P. Agarwal Rs.2,50,000/- 08.03.2011 P.S. Agarwal Rs.2,50,000/-

Accordingly, they were contended, as per the modus operandi above, this appears to be clear case of advancing cash and getting cheque in return to claim tax exemption and as to why the amounts as above being total at Rs.15,25,000/- be not treated as income other than agricultural out of the total income of Rs.21,88,928/- be treated as normal business income, to which they agreed.”

4 ITA No. 591/PUN/2018 A.Y.2011-12

5.

On going through the above order sheet entry in entirety, it becomes apparent that the ld. AR did not agree as has been held by the ld. CIT(Appeals) in the impugned order. Since the appellate order is based on such an alleged agreement for addition, which fact does not actually exist, I am of the considered opinion that it would be just and fair if the impugned order is set-aside and the matter is restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A). I order accordingly and direct him to decide the appeal afresh as per law after allowing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. 6.

Order pronounced on 13th day of December, 2018. Sd/- R.S. SYAL उपा�य� /VICE-PRESIDENT पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 13th December, 2018. SB आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The CIT (Appeals)-7, Pune. 4. The CIT-6, Pune. 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, “एक-सद�य” ब�च, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 6.

// True Copy // आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER,

�नजी स�चव / Private Secretary आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.

5 ITA No. 591/PUN/2018 A.Y.2011-12

Date 1 Draft dictated on 12.12.2018 Sr.PS/PS 2 Draft placed before author 12.12.2018 Sr.PS/PS 3 Draft proposed and placed JM/AM before the second Member 4 Draft discussed/approved by AM/JM second Member 5 Approved draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS Sr. PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS/PS 7 Date of uploading of order Sr.PS/PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk Sr.PS/PS 9 Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R * 11 Date of dispatch of order

*

More judgments on Section 133(6)

All 7,227 judgments and leading authorities on Section 133(6) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →