ITO, PURI vs. SANJEEB KUMAR SAHOO, PURI

आयकर अपीलीय अधधकरण, कटक न्यायपीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI N.S.SAINI, AM & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.204/CTK/2015 (धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-2010) Sri Sanjeeb Kumar Sahoo, Vs. ITO, Puri Ward, Puri Prop.Puspanjali Traders, At-Kumbharpada, PO/Dist. Puri-752002 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ PAN/GIR No. : BFJPS 8042 F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) AND आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.218/CTK/2015 (धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-2010) ITO, Puri Ward, Puri Vs. Sri Sanjeeb Kumar Sahoo, Prop.Puspanjali Traders, At-Kumbharpada, PO/Dist. Puri-752002 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ PAN/GIR No. : BFJPS 8042 F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. AND Cross Objection No.33/CTK/2015 (धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-2010) Sri Sanjeeb Kumar Sahoo, Vs. ITO, Puri Ward, Puri Prop.Puspanjali Traders, At-Kumbharpada, PO/Dist. Puri-752002 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ PAN/GIR No. : BFJPS 8042 F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) धनधााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri B.R.Panda, AR राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 04/07/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement 06/07/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, JM: These are the cross appeals filed by the assessee and revenue and the cross objection by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)-II, Bhubaneswar, passed in IT.Appeal No.0308/2014-15, dated 20.02.2015.

2 ITA No.204&214/2015 & CO No.33/2015 2. Since the issues involved in the appeals and cross objection are common, therefore, the cases are heard and disposed off by common order. 3. For the sake of convenience, we shall take up the grounds and facts narrated in the assessee’s appeal i.e. ITA No.204/CTK/2015 (AY 2009-2010). 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of trading in cement and ms. rods and filed the Return of income for the assessment year 2009-2010 on 18.09.2009 declaring total income of Rs.1,73,560/- and the Return of income was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under the CASS and notices u/s.143(2) & 142(1) were issued. In compliance to the same, ld. AR of the assessee appeared from time to time and filed the details as called for. On perusal of financial statements the AO found that the assessee had disclosed the Bank account of United Bank of India in the balance sheet and the ld. AO issued notice u/s.133(6) calling for information and statement of bank accounts. Ld. AO found that the assessee has maintained other two accounts which were not disclosed in the balance sheet and the ld. AO called for the explanations. The ld. AR filed the cashflow statements but could not explain why these bank accounts were suppressed and deposits in the bank accounts were also not explained. Hence, the AO made addition of deposits to the returned

3 ITA No.204&214/2015 & CO No.33/2015 income and assessed income of Rs. 81,10,620/- and passed the order u/s.143(3) of the Act, dated 29.12.2011. 5. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee has filed an appeal with the CIT(A). In the appellate proceedings, ld. AR of the assessee argued the grounds and reiterated the submissions made in the assessment proceedings and also submitted the information with respect to the bank accounts. The contention of the assessee that these bank accounts deposits are from the Books of accounts maintained by the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) has considered each disputed issues and perused the Bank statements and reconciled the amounts and observed that gross profit percentage shall be applied on the differential amount and dealt exhaustively at page 11 to 17 of the order on various different issues and computed taxable income of the assessee consisting of Business profits, unexplained investments, cash credits, interest income accruals and partly allowed the appeal. 6. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The contention of ld. AR before us that the CIT(A) has erred in making addition in respect of investments u/s.69, cash credits and other income. Since the Business income has been estimated by the CIT(A), it is not correct to make further addition u/s.69 of the Act, interest income and other income and prayed for deletion and allow the appeal. 8. Contra, ld. DR supported the order of CIT(A) on the disputed issue.

4 ITA No.204&214/2015 & CO No.33/2015 9. We heard the rival submissions and perused the findings of lower authorities and material on record. Ld. AR’s contention that the income has been estimated but, prima facie, we find that the AO has made addition in respect of bank deposits But whereas the ld. CIT(A) has distinguished the sales and purchases and other credits and computed the taxable income. We are of the opinion that the assessee has not discussed the disputed income before the AO and on perusal of the orders of AO, there is no finding on estimation of income or on the cash credit or on unexplained investments. Therefore, we are of the opinion that this disputed matters has to be re-examined by the AO. Accordingly in the interest of justice, we provide one more opportunity to the assessee to represent its case before the AO alongwith the submissions and claims and the order of CIT(A) is set aside and entire disputed issue is remitted to the file of AO, who shall verify, examine and take an appropriate decision and pass the order and shall provide adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 10. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 11. Now, we shall take Appeal filed by the revenue in ITA No.218/CTK/2015, wherein the revenue’s sole contention that ld. CIT(A) has erred in restricting the addition to Rs.9,64,177/- as against Rs.79,37,062/- made by the AO towards unexplained deposits in the bank account and the explanations provided by the assessee are not

5 ITA No.204&214/2015 & CO No.33/2015 satisfactory further the CIT(A) has overlooked the findings by the AO. Since, we have set aside the order of CIT(A) and remitted the entire issue to the file of AO while considering the assessee’s appeal on the same issue, we consider it appropriate also to remit the revenue’s appeal to the file of AO. Accordingly, appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. 12. Assessee has filed cross objection i.e. CO No.33/CTK/2015. As we have already set aside the order of CIT(A) and remitted the entire issue to the file of AO, therefore, the cross objection filed by the assessee has become infructuous and the same is dismissed. 13. In the result, appeal of the assessee and revenue are allowed for statistical purposes, whereas cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 06/07/2017. Sd/- Sd/- (N. S. SAINI) (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) लेखा सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्याधयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER कटक Cuttack; ददनांक Dated 06/07/2017 प्र.कु.धि/PKM, Senior Private Secretary आदेश की प्रधतधलधप अग्रेधषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथी / The Appellant- 1. Sri Sanjeeb Kumar Sahoo, Prop.Puspanjali Traders, At-Kumbharpada, PO/Dist. Puri-752002 प्रत्यथी / The Respondent- ITO, Puri, Ward Puri 2. 3. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A), आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 4. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण, कटक / DR, ITAT, Cuttack 5. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, 6. गाडा फाईल / Guard file. सत्याधपत प्रधत //True Copy// (Senior Private Secretary) आयकर अपीलीय अधधकरण, कटक / ITAT, Cuttack