Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC-C” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA
O R D E R Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member; All these four appeals are filed by the assessee which are directed against four separate orders of ld. CIT (A)-11, Bangalore all dated 30.06.2016 for Assessment Years 2007-08 to 2009-10 & 2011-12. All these appeals were heard together and are disposed of by way of this common order for the sake of convenience.
The grounds raised by the assessee in each year are as under.
Assessment Year 2007-08:- “1. On the facts and in the circumstance of the case. The order of the CIT (A) order dated 30.06.2016 for the Assessment year 2007-08, is not maintainable in law and liable to be set aside. 2. On the facts and in the circumstance of the case, The order of the CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that, Rs. 9,21,800/- additions was made by the assessing officer is against law and liable to be deleted.
3. On the facts and in the circumstance of the case. The CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that, there was no unexplained credit and there was no cash transaction the entire transaction of the appellant. The appellant was declared in the returns. Therefore without appreciate the facts of the case. The assessing authority made additions towards gift to the appellant as income of the appellant is excessive and liable to be deleted.
4. On the facts in the circumstance of case. The order of the CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that, the appellant brought to notice of the assessing authority that, the sources income and deposit details but without considering the same. The assessing authority made additions and passed order is against the law. 6. Without prejudice, confirming the levy of tax and levied interest and penalty are excessive and arbitrary and ought to have been deleted substantially. 7. For such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing and it is prays that kindly may allow the appeal in the interest of justice and equity.”
Assessment Year 2008-09:- “1. On the facts and in the circumstance of the case. The order of the CIT (A) dated 30.06.2016 for the assessment year 2008-09 is not maintainable in law and liable to set aside.
2. On the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that, there is no unexplained cash credits in the hands of the appellant. Thus, the additions made by the assessing officer are excessive and liable to set aside. In the interest of justice and equity.
On the facts and in the of the circumstance case. The CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that, the assessing authority without considering the facts of the case and nature of the business transaction of the appellant and additions made was not correct and liable to be set aside.
4. On the facts and in the circumstance of case. The CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that, the appellant had explained all the source of the income and transaction during the assessment proceedings before assessing officer Thus, the disallowed the claim of the appellant and same was confirmed by the CIT (A) is excessive and against the principle of natural justice. Hence both orders liable to set aside.
5. On the facts and in the of the circumstance case. The CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that, the assessing authority without providing the to 1781/Bang/2016 Page 3 of 7 opportunity to the appellant. The assessing authority passed order is against the principle of natural justice.
6. Without prejudice, the learned CIT (appeals) erred in confirming the additions and interest are excessive and arbitrary and liable to be deleted substantially. In the interest of justice and equity.
7. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal the appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed.” Assessment Year 2009-10:- “1. On the facts and in the circumstance of the case. The order of the CIT (A) dated 30.06.2016 for the assessment year 2009-10, is not maintainable in law and liable to set aside.
2. On the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the order of the CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that, the assessing authority made additions is not correct and liable to set aside. In the interest of justice.
3. On the facts and in the circumstance of the case. The order of the CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that; the assessing authority was wrongly understood that, The CIT (A) and order dated 25.03.2014. The additions of Rs. 9, 91,500/- allowed which is not correct. Thus, addition made by assessing authority is not correct and liable to be set aside. In the interest of justice 4. On the facts and in the circumstance of case. The order of the CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that, there is no unexplained income in the hands of appellant. Hence the additions are liable to be deleted.
Without prejudice, confirming the levy of tax and levied interest and penalty are excessive and arbitrary and ought to have been deleted substantially.
7. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal the appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed.” Assessment Year 2011-12:- “1. On the facts and in the circumstance of the case. The order of the CIT (A) dated 30.06.2016 for the assessment year 2011-12 is not maintainable in law and liable to be set aside.
2. On the facts and in the circumstance of the case, The order of the CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that, there is no unexplained income in the hands of the appellant and all the transaction was explained to assessing authority, these addition made by assessing authority of Rs.24,01,019/- is uncalculated and liable to deleted.
3. On the facts and in the circumstance of the case. The order of the to 1781/Bang/2016 Page 4 of 7 CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that, the assessing authority fails to appreciate that, the nature of business of the appellant and without appreciating the transaction of the appellant. The assessing authority disallowed claim of the appellant is against law. Thus, both orders are liable to be set aside.
On the facts and in the circumstance of the case. The order of the CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that, the assessing authority fails to appreciate the facts of the case and all transaction of the appellant which was made through bank only. Thus, the additions made by the assessing officer are excessive and is liable to set aside.
On the facts and in the circumstance of the case. The order of the CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that, the relayed judgment by the assessing officer which is not applicable in the facts of the appellant case.
6. On the facts and in the circumstance of the case. The order of the CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that, the CIT (A) fails to consider that, the disallowed claim of the appellant and levied the tax and interest under section 234A and 234B of income tax by assessing authority and the same was confirmed by the CIT (A) is excessive and arbitrary and liable to be set aside.
7. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal the appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed.”
3. It was submitted by ld. AR of assessee that apart from other written submissions made before CIT(A), one more written submission was made before him by way of letter dated 27.06.2016 which is reproduced by CIT(A) on page no. 6 of his order. He pointed out that as per this written submission, it was submitted by assessee that the additions have been made without appreciating the true facts and circumstances of the case in a routine manner without even properly looking into the statement of sources and explanation given. He also pointed out that it was also submitted before CIT (A) that the assessee’s HUF is also assessed to tax as well as his wife is also assessed to tax and therefore, funds of the assessee, his HUF and his wife and other family members should be considered because all the funds are handled by the assessee and while doing so, the funds get mixed up because of the fact that day to day accounts cannot be maintained but the issue was decided by CIT(A) by way of a cryptic order without considering all these submissions and therefore, the addition made by AO and confirmed by CIT(A) should be deleted to 1781/Bang/2016 Page 5 of 7 or matter should be restored back to CIT(A) for fresh decision by way of a speaking and reasoned order. The ld. DR of revenue supported the order of CIT (A).
4. I have considered the rival submissions. First, I reproduce the written submissions filed by assessee before CIT(A) as per letter dated 27.06.2016 which is reproduced by CIT(A) on page no. 6 of his order. The same is as under. “Most of the additions are on account of bank deposits. Additions have been made made without appreciating the true facts and circumstances of the case in a routine manner without even properly looking into the statement of sources and explanation given. My HUF is also assessed to tax, my wife is also assessed to tax. Funds of myself, my HUF, my Wife and other family members are handled by me and while doing transactions funds get mixed due to the facts that day to day accounts cannot be maintained in respect of all above. Receipts and payments account have also been filed and the same have not been properly looked into. Additions have been made just to avoid audit objections and suspicion of higher authorities, thinking that let this issue be decided in appeal. There are proper sources for each and every bank deposit. Most of the deposits are out of opening cash balance, withdrawals from bank and business receipts. In this connection I have also draw kind attention that peak balance in the account has to be considered and not all deposits. If sources are available for peak credits no addition can he made. For the assessment year 2007-08, addition of Rs.1,44,000/- deposited on 26/08/2006,Rs. 5,77,800/- deposited on24/03/2007 and Rs.2,00,000/-towards gift from my brother have been added to the income declared. There is a mention of Rs. 3,00,000/- loan from my Father, this has been discussed in the assessment order but when explained that there is a proper source for the same, no addition has been made on this account. As stated in my grounds of appeal
two deposits in the bank are for the purpose of issuing demand drafts have been issued on their behalf. As explained in my grounds of appeal even sufficient sources are available with me. Gift of Rs. 2,00,000/- was made to me by my brother who is assessed to tax and sufficient sources were available with him.” to 1781/Bang/2016 Page 6 of 7
5. Now, I reproduce the finding of ld. CIT(A) as available on page no. 9 of his order. The same is as under. “Thus, it can be seen from the Assessment Order that the explanation was not accepted by the Assessing Officer. He has discussed that explanation cannot be accepted as the appellant did not furnish any details of cheque through which the loan was received nor any detail of withdrawal of cash by his father and deposit of the same in the appellant's account was furnished. By mistake, he has forgotten to add while computing the total income. This is a mistake apparent from record and can be corrected. Therefore, the argument of the appellant that it was accepted by the Assessing Officer is not correct. Hence, as discussed in previous paragraphs, the addition of Rs 2 lakhs as unexplained gift in the hands of appellant is upheld.”
6. From the above reproductions from the order of CIT(A), it is seen that the ld. CIT(A) has decided the issue by way of a cryptic order without dealing with the various submissions made before CIT(A). Under these facts, I feel it proper to restore back the entire matter to the file of CIT(A) for passing a speaking and reasoned order after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to both sides. I order accordingly in all the four years because the issue involved in all the four years is same and the order passed by the CIT(A) is also identical. In view of this decision, no adjudication on merit is called for..
In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.