Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE
Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM
आदेश / ORDER
PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM
This appeal filed by assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Aurangabad dated 25.08.2016 for assessment year 2010-11.
2 ITA No.2969/PUN/2016 A.Y.2010-11
The assessee has raised following grounds in appeal:
“1. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in sustaining addition towards alleged Unexplained Investments towards Cash deposits in Bank as made by the learned AO - - totally disregarding the facts and contention of Assessee that cash was deposited for making Payments to drivers of respective trucks/vehicles used in transportation of goods. -ignoring even the written submissions filed by the appellant during the course of assessment proceedings. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.30,49,700/- made by the learned AO and not considering the expenditure incurred by the assessee for the above said credits. 3. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in-sustaining the additions credit entries in saving bank account added u/s.69 without appreciating the fact that the learned AO had not considered any submission of the assessee. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, substitute, modify the above grounds of appeal, if necessary on the basis of written submissions and personal presentation to be made at the time of hearing.”
The Ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to an Affidavit dated
19.11.2016 filed by assessee and submitted that there is delay of 43 days in
filing this appeal. The delay is occurred due to ill heath of the assessee and
the assessee could not consultant for discussion on the matter of filing the
appeal. Therefore, the instant appeal could not be filed within the prescribed
time limit of 60 days before Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Hence,
the Ld. Counsel of assessee prayed for admitting the appeal for adjudication
condoning the said delay of 43 days in filing the appeal.
After hearing both the sides and considering the contents of Affidavit
dated 19.11.2016 filed by the assessee, I am of the opinion that ill health
3 ITA No.2969/PUN/2016 A.Y.2010-11
constitutes reasonable cause and hence, the delay of 43 days in filing appeal
is required to be condoned. The appeal is taken up for adjudication.
On merits of the appeal, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted
that the only issue raised by assessee is about cash deposit of
Rs.30,49,700/-. For want of explanation on the source of cash deposits, the
Assessing Officer made addition in the ex-parte assessment made u/s.144 of
the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). During First
Appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition without
appreciating the evidences furnished before him or conducting enquiry into
the cross verification of the evidences and the source of cash deposits by a
couple of individuals. The assessee submitted that the cash was given by
transport contractors i.e. (i) Mr. Salim Huseaain Siddiqui of Rs.12,45,870/-
& (ii) Mr. Mohamad Amin Siddiqui of Rs.16,80,630/-.
During proceedings before me, Ld. Counsel for the assessee brought
my attention to the confirmation letters, balance sheet copies and other
financial statements of Mr. Salim & Mr. Mohammad (supra) and submitted
that these amounts consists of part addition of Rs.30,49,700/- which
requires to be examined thoroughly. Therefore, Ld. Counsel for the assessee
prayed for restoring the matter to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh
examination.
On the other hand, Ld. DR for the Revenue placed reliance on the
order of Assessing Officer and CIT(A).
On hearing both the parties, I am of the opinion that request of the Ld.
Counsel is fair and reasonable and accordingly, I order for remanding the
4 ITA No.2969/PUN/2016 A.Y.2010-11
issue. The Assessing Officer is directed to examine thoroughly the all the documents and sources of funds/cash deposits and ownership of the same i.e. (i) Mr. Salim Huseaain Siddiqui & (ii) Mr. Mohamad Amin Siddiqui. The Assessing Officer shall examine them too as per law. The Assessing Officer shall grant reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee before repeating the additions, if any. Accordingly, grounds raised by assessee in appeal are allowed for statistical purpose.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 17th day of May, 2018.
Sd/- (डी.क�णाकरा राव/D. Karunakara Rao) लेखा सद�य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 17th May, 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)-1, Aurangabad. 4. The Pr. CIT-1, Aurangabad. 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.