SHRI AMIT SUNDERLAL BADWAIK,NAGPUR vs. I.T.O. WARD 1(1), NAGPUR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Nagpur Bench, Nagpur Before Shri P K Bansal, Vice President and Shri Pawan Singh, Judicial Member ITA No.188/NAG/2015 (Assessment Year 200g-10} Shri Amit Sunderlal Badwaik Tncome Tax Olficer Sunder Tower, Dhantoli Ward 1(1) Wardha Road, Nagpur Vs. Nagpur PAN AKJPB1179Q Appellant Respondent Appellant by; Shri K,P. Dewani Respondent by: Shri Ceetesh Kumar Date of Hearing; 20.11.2017 Date of Pronouncement: 20.11.2017 QRDER Per Pawan Singh, JM This appeal under Section 253 of the Income Tax Act by the assessee is directed against the ordcr of the CIT(A)-I, Nagpur dated 27.02,2015 for A.Y. 2009-10_ '2 The assessee has raised the following grounds ol appeal: PPPL [ AO. erred in making the addition of 1 The leamed 8 Rs.69,77,764/ - as income of assessee On account of cash deposits in bank account, )) The addition made by the A.O. at Rs,69,77,764/ is unjustified, 2 unwarranted and excessive: 3, The leamed CIT (Appeals} erred in confirming the addition of Rs.69,77,764/ made by ihe A.O. holding that appellant failed to file any plausible reply as regard to the cash deposits in the bank account 0f assessee erred in not accepting the additional 4 The leamed CITIA) evidence a5 submitted in appellate proceedings 5_ The assessee denies liability to pay interest under section 2344, 234B and 234C of Ir: Act 1961. Without prejudice, interest charged under Section 2344, 234B and 234C is illegal, invalid and excessive: The brief facts of thc case are that the axsessee, &n individual, filed his return of incore on 25,03,2010 declaring total income 2l <2,00,000/_ The absessment was completed on 28.12.2011, The AO while passing the as8es8ment order; besides othet additions/ disallowances, made an addition of {69,77,764/- on account of cash deposits in ICICI Bank and Yes Bank during the relevant financial year Jn appeal beiore the CITIA) the addition action of the AQ was confirmed, Thus, further aggrieved by the order of CITIA) the assessee i8 file the present appeal before us. 4_ We have heard the learned AR for the assessee and the learned DR for the revenue, The learned A.R for the assessee argued that the AO made the addition for deposits in bank account in ICICI Bank A/9 No, 005901532372 o[ 853,0 06,386/ and A/c; NQ, 624201031867 or {3,61,098 and Yes Bank Afc of {13,10,280/_ It Qpel was argued that the bank accolint No_ 2201031867 in ICICI Bank was opened only 02.09.2011. Thus there was occasion for deposing in the amount in the said accounl; accordingly no { nddition canl be made in the assfssment year under consideration: [n support of this contention the learned A.R. for the assessee filed copy of certificate issued by the ICICI Bank dated 03.12.2013 certifying that the account No. 642201031867 was opened on 02.12.2011, For other deposits in ICICI Bank A/c No. 005901532372 if *53,06,386/ and in Yes Bank A/c of <13,10,280/- it was argued that the assessee is engaged in the business of trading of fumiture and the deposits consist of amount deposited from time t0 time. <36,66,899/_ was cash deposit and <6,04,000/- Was deposit through cheque Teceived from parties, <35,000/ - was cheques returned_ {10, 0Q,C ,000/ - was through cheques from father on account of loan and {487/- was On account of saving bank account interest Further in Yes Bank the cash was deposited of €12,10,280/ {1,0 00,000/- #a8 On account of cheque return and *167 WaS On account of savings bank account interest: The AO made the addition without accepting the explanation made by {he assessee. During the appellate stage the asscssee Turnished complete cletails with regard to the purchase of furniture along with bills; ALl the evidences were remanded to the AO for vcrification and examination. The AQ examined the additional evidences and no discrepancy was pointed oul copy of the remand reprjrt furnished by the AO to the lcarned CIT(A) is available OI} pagea 77,67 an d 70 ol the paper book. It was argued that dcspite the fact that the AQ has not pointed cut any discrepancy the learned CIT(A} has not accepted the evidences furnished by the assessee_ In the alternative it was argued that the income of the a5se5820 may be estimated On the basis of the turnover_ The prolit in the similar business is not more than 5% ol the turnover, 5 On the other hand, the learned DR, for Revenue supported the orders of the authorities below. Jt was argued that the learned CIT(A} has elaborately considered the evidences filed by lhe assesgee and the remand report furnished by the AO On the additional evidences filed during the appellate stage: It wa8 Iurther argued that during the appellate stage the assessee has changed his stand, Before the 4O the assessee contended that he iS 3 supplier, however; bcfore the learned CIT(AJ the assessee eaded that he is & trader. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and have gone through the ordets Of the authorities below. The AQ made the addition with on the basis of the deposits in the bank accounts, i.e ICICI Bank A/c Noj 00591532372 of {53,06,386/- A/c No. 624201031867 of {3,61,098/_ and in Yes Bank A/c of <13,10,280/- The AO made the addition holding that the assessee has not explained the dcposits. Before the CIT(A) the assessee furnished copies of bank statement of ICICI Bank and Yes Bank. The assessee also filed 0 copy of the ledger book maintained by the assessee. The assessee als0 filed copy of the certificate issued by the ICICI Bank dated 30.12.2013 certifying that A/c No_ 624201031867 was opened on 02.09.2011. We have noted that the learned CITIA} has not considered the certificate issued by the ICICI Bank that A/c No_ 624201031867 was not in existence during the relevant financial year.

Considering the (act that he said account wa$ mo1 in existence the addition made by the AO for deposit of ?3,61,098/_ in the said account is with withoutt bringing any material On record, Thus, the addition of *3, 61,098}. is deleled. 8o far a3 the deposits of 753,06,386/- and {13,10,280/- in [CICI Rank and Ycs Bank are concerned the learned CIT(A} confirmed the action ol the AO in & mechanical way, We have noted that the assessee has placed on record delails of purchases and details ol various depositB made in the bank accounts We have lurther noted that the evidences {urnished by the assessee during the frst appellatc stage were relerrcd to the AO, who has not disputed the same, We havc (urther noted that the assessee has placed on record related with trading activity in (urniture and has placed on record the receipts on transport and octroi Considering the nature of business of the assessee and the contention of TEicithe assessee & reasonable percentage of disallowance of total dcposit would [ the end of justice. Considering the lact that the assessee is engaged trading of (urniture We deem it appropriate to disallow 4+TT 59 of 0533,06,386/ and 713,10,280/ Thus the addition is restricted to 83,30,833/ - ( 59/ of Rs,53,06,0386 And of Rs. 13,10,280/-1. With these directions the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed_ 7 In the Fesult, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allawed Order pronounced in the open court on 20uh Novem ber , 2017. - sd]- (PK, Bansal) (Pawan Singh) Vice President Judicial Member NQaPur, Dated: 2Qh November, 2017 Copy to: 1 The Appellant 2, The Respondent 3, The CITIA) -1, Nagpur 4, The CIT - ] Nagpur 5, The DR; Bench ITAT; Nagpur 16 lu4 Kle By Order_ ll' Euafrvar IAT, Naplrifuedociataryr a27?0Mi 2944v6 3 Zaie : vxral {aJztr Berm {{/ / 1.p.