PRALIPTA KUMAR NANDA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), BHUBANESWAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 427/CTK/2016Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack10 August 2017AY 2010-115 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the issue of Rs. 10 lakhs to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication due to additional evidence filed. The addition of Rs. 3,30,600/- from four persons who appeared before the AO was deleted, while the addition of Rs. 8,90,400/- from the remaining 10 persons was confirmed.

What were the facts?

The assessee deposited Rs. 21,50,000/- in their bank account, comprising cash and cheque deposits, claiming them as contract receipts. The Assessing Officer added the entire amount under Section 68, which was confirmed by the CIT(A) for lack of proof of creditworthiness and genuineness.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee proved the genuineness and creditworthiness of cash deposits to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer, and the impact of additional evidence filed before the Tribunal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK

Before: SHRI N.S SAINI

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Roy, AR
For Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)-

2, Bhubaneswar, dated 23.8.2016 for the assessment year 2010-2011.

2.

The sole grievance of the assessee in this appeal is that the CIT(A)

erred in confirming the addition of Rs.21,50,000/- u/s.68 of the Act.

3.

The brief facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer observed

that during the year the assessee had made deposit of Rs.21,50,000/- in

the bank account with ING Vyasya Bank Ltd. He observed that there are

cash deposit of Rs.11,50,000/- and cheque deposit of Rs.10,00,000/-

aggregating to Rs.21,50,000/-. The assessee claimed that these are

contract receipts and only 8% of Rs.21,50,000/- amounting to

2 ITA No. 427/CT K/ 2016 Asse ssment Year :20 10- 11

Rs.1,72,000/- is chargeable to tax. The Assessing Officer did not accept

the explanation of the assessee and brought to tax Rs.21,50,000/- u/s.68

of the Act.

4.

On appeal before the CIT(A), the assessee contended that it had

receipts by cheque of Rs.10,00,000/- from Shri Akhaya Kumar Patra, who

confirmed having paid the sum of Rs.10 lakhs in response to notice 133 of

the Act. Further, Rs.11,50,000/- was received from 14 persons in cash as

under:

SI. Name & Address Amount Date of receipt by No. the appellant. 1. Balunkeswar das. 77,000 15/04/2009 At/Po- Datatotta sahi, Dist-Puri 2. Jayanta Pattnayak 81,200 21/04/2009 Plot No. -125, Bapuji Nagar, Bhubaneswar 3. Suresh Das 92,400 16/05/2009 SB1 Colony, Keshura, Jharapara, Bhubaneswar 4 Jayanta Pattnayak 81,200 27/05/2009 Plot No. -125, Bapuji Nagar, Bhubaneswar 5 Jayanta Pattnayak 81,200 27/05/2009 Plot No. -125, Bapuji Nagar, Bhubaneswar 6 Somanath mishra At/Po-Datatotta Sahi, 77,000 29/05/2009 Dist-Puri 7 Jayanta Pattnayak 81,200 04/06/2009 Plot No. -125, Bapuji Nagar, Bhubaneswar 8 i(J.ndra Satpathy, 92,400 23/06/2009 'Shop No. 12, Krishna Homeo Clinic, Siripur, Bhubaneswar. 9 Namita Sahoo 77,000 03/07/2009 Plot No-69, Dumduma Housing Board Colony, Bhubaneswar-19 10 Manjulata Sahu 81,200 21/08/2009 Plot No.69, Dumuduma, H.B. colony, Bhubaneswar. 11 Rohit Bhanj, At-Aiginia, PO: Dumuduma, 80,000 26/08/2009 Khandagiri, Bhubaneswar. 12. Bhobani Puhamn & Prahulla Behera, At: 75,000 20.10.2009

3 ITA No. 427/CT K/ 2016 Asse ssment Year :20 10- 11

Maechheli, PO: Mahipur, Nayagarh 13. Khirabdhi Tanaya Pradhan, At/PO: Ganda- 85,000 28.10.2009 Munda, Siripur, BBSR 14. Arup Mohanty, Labour Colony, Unit-3, BBSR 96,000 15.11.2009

5.

He submitted that out of 14 persons, four persons appeared before

the Assessing Officer, namely Smt. Manjulata Sahu from whom

Rs.81,200/- was received, Smt. Namita Sahu from whom Rs.77,000/-

was received, Shr Rohit Bhanj from whom Rs.80,000/- was received and

Shri Indra Satpathy from whom Rs.92,400/- was received who confirmed

having given the amount to the assessee for the construction of boundary

wall and they were income tax assessee and PAN numbers were

submitted. It was his submission that the addition should be deleted.

6.

The CIT(A), however confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer

on the ground that creditworthiness and genuineness of above persons

were not proved.

7.

Before me, ld A.R.of the assessee submitted that he has filed

additional evidence before the Tribunal in the paper book in the form of

bank statement of Shri Akhshya Kumar Patra, copy of confirmation of Shri

A.K.Patra and prayed that the matter should be restored back to the file

of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication of the issue afresh in the light

of the evidence now filed before the Tribunal. Further, he submitted that

with regard to four persons who appeared before the Assessing Officer

and confirmed having advanced money to the assessee and also filed

4 ITA No. 427/CT K/ 2016 Asse ssment Year :20 10- 11

their PAN Numbers, therefore, the addition should be deleted. Ld A.R.

submitted that with regard to balance 10 persons from whom the

assessee had received Rs.8,90,400/- should be confirmed as the assessee

could neither produce them before the Assessing Officer nor file

confirmation from them

8.

Ld D.R. supported the orders of lower authorities.

9.

In the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the

considered view that since the assessee has filed additional evidence

before the Tribunal in the form of bank statement of State Bank of India,

Dumduma Branch confirming the loan etc, by Shri A.K.Patra, in the

interest of natural justice, the matter should be restored back to the

Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication of loan of Rs.10 lakhs after

allowing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

9.1 As regards to the amount received from four persons in cash, who

appeared before the Assessing Officer and confirmed having given money

to the assessee and also filed their PAN numbers, I am of the considered

opinion that no material has been brought on record by the Assessing

Officer after examining those persons to show that they could not have

advanced money to the assessee or that the advances given are not

genuine. Therefore, I delete the addition of Rs.3,30,600/- from four

persons.

5 ITA No. 427/CT K/ 2016 Asse ssment Year :20 10- 11

9.2 With regard to balance amount of Rs..8,90,400/-, received from 10

persons, the A.R. of the assessee very fairly conceded that it should be

added to the income of the assessee. Therefore,I confirm the addition of

Rs.8,90,400/- under section 68 of the Act.

10.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for

statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 10 /08/2017.

Sd/- (N.S Saini) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Cuttack; Dated 10 /08/2017 B.K.Parida, SPS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The appellant : Prallilpta Kumar Nanda, Plot No.472, Gandamunda, Khandagiri, Bhubaneswar 2. The respondent: ITO Ward 2(4), Bhubaneswar. 3. The CIT(A) -2, Bhubaneswar 4. Pr.CIT-2, Bhubaneswar BY ORDER, 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. //True Copy// SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, Cuttack-

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →