Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” Bench, Mumbai
Before: Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM)& Shri Pawan Singh (JM)
O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran (AM) :-
The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 13.3.2015 passed by the learned CIT(A)-29, Mumbai and it relates to A.Y. 2011-12. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of the learned CIT(A) in partially confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s. 68 of the Act.
We have heard the parties and perused the record. The assessee is engaged in the business of commission agency in textile goods. The Assessing Officer received information to the effect that the assessee has deposited cash aggregating to ` 58,41,485/- in the savings bank account maintained with IDBI. Hence, the Assessing Officer called for the sources of deposits made into the bank account stated above, since the above said bank account did not find place in the books of account of the assessee. Before the Assessing Officer, the assessee submitted that the deposits made into the bank account represent collection made by the him on behalf of the his principals. He further
2 Mr. Mithalal Amirchand Jain submitted that the amount so collected were deposited in the savings bank account and subsequently repaid to the principals by way of cheque as well as by way of cash. He submitted that some part of deposits was also used to reimburse the expenses incurred by him and adjust commission amount due to him. Since the assessee could not furnish supporting evidences to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer, the Assessing Officer assessed the entire cash deposits of ` 58,41,485/- as income of the assessee u/s. 68 of the Act.
Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee furnished various details and hence the learned CIT(A) called for the remand report from the Assessing Officer. In the remand report, the Assessing Officer found fault with various details furnished by the assessee. The learned CIT(A) noticed that the assessee has withdrawn a sum of ` 8,48,000/- by way of cash through ATM. Hence, the learned CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to allow credit for cash withdrawal of ` 8,48,000/- and confirm the balance amount of addition.
Learned AR submitted that the learned CIT(A) did not examine reconciliation statement furnished by the assessee as well as reply given by him against the remand report of the Assessing Officer. He further submitted that the assessee has fully reconciled deposits made into the bank account and the ‘statement of reconciliation’ is placed at page 3&4 of the paper book No.2 filed by the assessee. Accordingly, learned AR submitted that the assessee may be provided with an opportunity to explain new reconciliation statement prepared by him before the Assessing Officer.
Learned Departmental Representative did not object to the plea put forth by learned AR.
Having regard to the facts discussed above, we are of the view that the assessee, in the interest of natural justice, may be provided with an opportunity to explain reconciliation statement prepared by him before the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the learned CIT(A) and restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with the 3 Mr. Mithalal Amirchand Jain direction to examine the same afresh by duly considering the statement prepared by the assessee and/or any other information or explanations that may be furnished by the assessee and take appropriate decision in accordance with the law.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Order has been pronounced in the Court on 31.1.2017.