Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC BENCH, PUNE
Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM
PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM :
This is the appeal filed by Assessee against the order of CIT(A)-2, Pune dated 14-07-2017 for the Assessment Year 2013-14.
Grounds raised by the Assessee are extracted below :
“1. On the facts and the circumstances of the case the CIT(A)-2 and assessing officer has erred in treating the amount as unexplained cash deposit u/s.69A. 2. Because the CIT(A)-2 has made wrongful addition further proceedings of income and demand, and the proceedings is liable to be annulled. 3. On the facts and circumstances the CIT has erred on treating the deposits in bank as from unexplained source. 4. The above grounds of appeal may kindly be allowed to be amended, altered, modified etc. in the interest of natural justice.”
2 ITA No.2228/PUN/2017 Viraj T. Dhasal
Briefly stated relevant facts includes that the assessee is an
agriculturist and derives inform from agricultural activity. Assessee
filed the return of income declaring agricultural income at
Rs.4,15,000/-. During the assessment proceedings, on perusing the
ledger extracts, bank accounts, cash book, AO noted certain
discrepancies on the claims of the assessee with respect to the sources
of cash deposits in the bank accounts. AO invoked the provisions of
section 69A of the Act and eventually made an addition of
Rs.12,98,141/- treating the same as unexplained cash deposits in the
banks.
Before the First Appellate proceedings, the assessee filed written
submissions giving the details of the amounts deposited in the bank
accounts namely (1) Bank of Baroda, Rahuri – Rs.15,40,800/- and (2)
Axis Bank, Rahuri – Rs.28,86,680/-. The CIT(A), after analysing the
deposits made in these two banks (Para No.4.1 of the order of CIT(A)),
arrived at the following conclusion :
“4.4 The submission of the appellant that the cash deposits are out of agricultural income is not an acceptable proposition. I therefore find no merit in the contention of the appellant with regard to source of cash deposits. From the limited land holding, as discussed supra the appellant has already shown agricultural income of Rs.4,15,000/- which has been accepted by the AO as well. The appellant has failed to show as to how he was able to earn so much of income from the limited land holding. I accordingly restrict the agricultural income to the extent of Rs.4,15,000/- which has been disclosed by the appellant and accepted by the AO as well. The appellant will get benefit of Rs.4,15,000/- against the cash deposit in the bank account to the tune of Rs.51,62,480/-. The appellant is thus unable to explain the source of cash deposits to the extent of Rs.47,47,480/- (Rs.51,62,480 – Rs.4,15,000)
From the above, it is evident that the conclusion of the CIT(A) resulting
in enhancement of the addition.
3 ITA No.2228/PUN/2017 Viraj T. Dhasal
Aggrieved with the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed the present
appeal before the Tribunal with the grounds extracted above.
Before me, at the outset, Shri Abhay Shastri, Ld. AR for the
assessee submitted that the CIT(A) has not properly appreciated the
facts relating to the sources of cash deposits among the bank accounts.
Ld. AR requested for remanding the issue to the file of CIT(A) for proper
appreciation of the facts and the arguments of the assessee. In this
regard, Ld. AR filed the written submissions in favour of remanding. I
find it relevant to reproduce the same below :
“2. The CIT(A) did not considered the following facts though submitted before it along with the proofs : (a) Loan taken from SBI bank of Rs.3,00,000 which was disbursed in cash was redeposited in the assessee account. (b) Holding in name of Assessee is 0.47 hectors whereas in the name of his whole family, holding of agricultural land stood 4.94 hectors. CIT(A) has wrongly considered the holding in his family name to 0.47 hectors. (c) Receipts from agricultural income are not considered amounting to Rs.21,76,704/- (i) Ahilya Holkar Krushi 3,06,132/- (ii) Vikhe Patil Sakhar Karkhana 18,70,572/- (d) There are certain moneys borrowed from friends and relatives which was also not considered by the Assessing Officer. We may be allowed to produce the proofs before the Assessing Officer for the above claims. We request your Honor to restore the case to the Assessing Officer.”
On the other hand, Ld. DR for the Revenue relied heavily on the
order of CIT(A) and prayed for confirming the order of CIT(A) in
principle.
On hearing both the sides and on perusing the orders of AO and
the CIT(A), I find the AO/CIT(A) have not considered the aspects raised
by the Ld. AR for the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of
administration of justice, I find it appropriate to remand the entire issue
of invoking the addition u/s.69A of the Act to the file of CIT(A) for
4 ITA No.2228/PUN/2017 Viraj T. Dhasal
considering all the aspects mentioned above and passing a speaking
order on this issue. Needless to mention, the CIT(A) shall give
reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance
with the set principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the grounds
raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical
purposes.
Order pronounced on this 05th day of October, 2018.
Sd/- (D.KARUNAKARA RAO) लेखा सद� / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; �दनांक Dated : 05th October, 2018. Satish
आदेश आदेश क� आदेश आदेश क� क� �ितिलिप क� �ितिलिप �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order is forwarded to : अ�ेिषत
अपीलाथ� / The Appellant; 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent; 2. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A)-2, Pune 3. आयकर आयु� / The Pr.CIT-1, Pune 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे “SMC” / 5. DR ‘SMC’, ITAT, Pune; गाड� फाईल / Guard file. 6.
आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,स आदेशानुसार
स�यािपत �ित //True Copy// Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune