Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE
Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL
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
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.
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.
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
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
*