Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “J” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH
सुनवाई की तायीख / Date of Hearing : 12.01.2017 घोषणा की तायीख /Date of Pronouncement : 18.01.2017 आदेश / O R D E R
PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM:
This appeal filed by the assessee on 03.08.3016 is against the order of the CIT (A)-32, Mumbai dated 18.5.2016 for the assessment year 2012-2013. In this appeal, assessee raised the following grounds which read as under:- “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) has erred in rejecting the additional evidence filed by the assessee.
2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) has erred by confirming the addition of Rs. 28,36,000/- under a different section namely 69A instead of section 69 or 68 as done by the AO and ignoring amongst other issues the fact that addition u/s 69A can be done only by the AO as defined u/s 2(7A).
3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 28,36,000/-, ignoring the submissions made by assessee and without making or directing appropriate enquiries.”
2. Briefly stated relevant facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and filed the return of income declaring the total income of Rs. 4,39,330/-. Assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act and the assessed income was determined at Rs. 32,76,250/-. In the assessment, AO made addition of Rs. 28,36,000/- being the cash deposits in the accounts of the assessee. CIT (A) confirmed the same for the reasons given in para 5 of his order. Aggrieved, assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal by raising the above mentioned grounds.
During the proceedings before us, Ld Counsel for the assessee brought our attention to page 29 of the paper book (the bank account copy of the assessee with Central Bank of India) and underlined cash deposits of Rs. 28 lakhs on 25.10.2011 and 28.10.2011. Further, Ld AR brought our attention to page 46 of the paper book (the bank account copy of Shri Dilipkumar Babulal Ranka (in short „Shri Ranka‟) with Central Bank of India A/c No.3006391790) and demonstrated that the above cash deposits have found their way to the bank account of Shri Ranka on 25.10.2011 and 28.10.2011. After discussions in the court, Ld Counsel for the assessee argued that the assessee is not the owner of the cash deposits in his account as Shri Ranka is the beneficiary of the said account. Ld AR pleaded that the assessee was merely a conduit for the money belonging to Shri Ranka. Bringing our attention to the assessment order, ld Counsel for the assessee argued that the AO has not gone into the said facts of the transactions and erred in taxing the said amount in the hands of the assessee u/s 69 of the Act. He also mentioned that the Assessing Officer has erroneously held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus when all the details were already given to the authorities. Further, stating that the Assessing Officer concluded the investigation without examining Shri Ranka, with the motive to dig out the facts relating to the ownership of the cash deposits in the accounts of the assessee.
On hearing both the parties and on perusal of the orders of the Revenue Authorities as well as the relevant material placed before us, we are of the opinion, the investigation undertaken by the Revenue Authorities is not complete in all respects and therefore, the conclusions drawn by them are unsustainable in law. Therefore, in our considered view, the matter has to be remanded to the file of the AO for deeper investigation into the source of the cash deposits in the bank accounts of the assessee. AO should also examine Shri Ranka invoking the powers, the Act has conferred on him. With the said directions, we allow the grounds raised
by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.