Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BENCH “H”,MUMBAI
Before: SHRI R.C.SHARMA & SHRI PAWAN SINGH
Assessee by : Shri Dr. P. Daniel (AR) Revenue by : Shri K.C. Kanojia (DR) Date of hearing : 19.10.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 21.10.2016 O R D E R
PER PAWAN SINGH, JM:
This appeal u/s 253 of the Income-tax Act is directed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)-33, Mumbai dated 19.01.2012 for Assessment Year (AY) 2006-07. The assessee has raised as many as four grounds of appeal
, however as per our considered view the only substantial ground of appeal is that whether the ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and law in confirming the disallowance/addition of Rs. 51,64,000/-.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the notice u/s 142(1) dated 21.02.2007 was served upon the assessee for relevant Ay for calling upon the assessee to file return of income, as no return of income was filed by that date, thereafter, summons were issued to the assessee on 21.11.2007 for filing the details of income affidavit regarding holding of Bank Accounts, PAN of self, & AOP and its Members, Note of formation of AOP, Bank Summary of all Accounts,
Antecedent history statement of assessee, summary of tax payments made till date consequent to survey u/s 133A and Copy of acquisition deed of plot sold. In response to the summon the assessee attended the proceeding on various dates and furnished the information. However, as per AO the complete information and details were not file in response to the query with regard to antecedent of history statement, the assessee contended that he do not have income chargeable to tax up to 31.03.2007. The AO completed the assessment u/s 144 of the Act and assessed the income of assessee as under;
Income from Business 95,640 Income from other sources (i) Unexplained Advances in cash 1,57,90,844 (ii) Opening Capital from 8,79,960 Undisclosed sources (iii) Credits in Undisclosed Bank 50,000 Account (iv) On account of Low Withdrawal 1,14,000 1,68,34,804 Total income 1,69,30,444 Rounded off 1,69,30,450 Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) wherein the assessee was granted partial relief and except in respect of disallowance of Rs. 22,00,000/- received from M/s Gurusai Construction, Rs. 23,14,000/- received from Anil Rajput, Rs. 1,50,000/- received from H. N. Goyal & Others, AOP and Rs. 5,00,000/- received from Unique Constructions,. Thus, further aggrieved the order of AO, the assessee filed the present appeal before us.
We have heard the ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee and ld. Departmental Representative (DR) for the Revenue and perused the material available on record. The Ld. AR of the assessee argued that he has furnished the confirmation of all four parties which are available at page no. 18 to 27 of the Paper Book (PB). The assessee also furnished the Bank Passbook of Gurusai Construction, copy of which is at (page no. 19 to 25 of paper book) and assessee’s Bank Passbook showing the payment as on 30.03.2016 (at page no. 26 of the PB), it was further argued that only reason for disallowance was that PAN Number given by the assessee was in the name of an individual Shri Jagdish Ramanlal, who is the partner or proprietor of the Firm. Neither the AO nor ld. CIT(A) made any enquiry. The ld. AR of the assessee further argued that loan confirmation from Anil Rajput is also available at ( page no. 29 and 30 of the PB) along with cash summary and the same was not verified by the authorities below similarly ld. AR of the assessee argued that confirmation of Shri Hiralal Goyal & ors is available at page no. 45 to 47 of PB and in respect of Unique Construction, the ledger account at page no. 48, copy of assessee’s bank account at page no. 49 and creditors bank statement at page no. 50 of PB. The ld. AR of the assessee would further argue that during the remand proceeding despite his repeated request, the AO has not issued summon to all those parties as the parties were not co- operating with the assessee. On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue argued that the onus to prove the genuinenity of transaction, identity and creditworthiness of the parties was on the assessee and assessee failed to discharge his onus, thus the assessee is not entitled for further relief, however, it was further submitted by the ld. DR for the Revenue that he has no objection, if the matter is remanded to the file of AO for proper verification and examination of the documents furnished by the assessee during the first appellate stage.
We have considered the rival contention of the parties and gone through the orders of authorities below. Considering the contention of ld. AR of the assessee that the AO has not issued any summon to the parties during the remand proceeding. The AO completed the assessment order u/s 144 of the Act. The assessee has shown documentary evidence to us which require proper verification and examination at the end of AO, thus, we deem it appropriate to restore the case to the file of AO. The AO shall examine the documents furnished by assessee and would pass order afresh in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to fully co-operate and furnish the necessary information which may require by the AO.
With these observations, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on this 21st October, 2016.