Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BENCH “D” MUMBAI
Before: BEFORE SHRI BR BASKARAN & SH PAWAN SINGH
Assessee repented by : Shri Paresh Shah (AR) Revenue represented by : Shri B.S. Bist (DR) Date of hearing: 25/07/2016 Date of Pronouncement: 26/08/2016 ORDER PER PAWAN SINGH 1. The present appeal is filed by assessee against the order of CIT(A)-22, Mumbai dated 10.02.2014 for Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10. The assessee has raised the following Grounds of appeal:
1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Learned Assessing Officer erred in ignoring material available with him. The Ld. AO has erred in treating deposits in bank as unexplained cash credit ignoring the utilization thereof, audit report, books of accounts and submissions filed.
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Learned Assessing Officer erred in treating receipts as income in form of professional fees.
3. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter vary and / or withdraw any or all the above grounds of appeal.
4. The Appellant prays that the addition made to income as: (a) Unexplained cash credit to the tune of Rs. 24,33,500/- be deleted and (b) Professional services to the tune of Rs. 26,000/- be deleted.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income for relevant AY on 22/09/2009 declaring total income of Rs. 12,63,645/-. The return of income was selected for scrutiny. During the assessment proceeding,
the Assessing Officer (AO) observed that assessee deposited a cash of Rs. 24,33,500/- in COSMOS Bank, the assessee asked to explain the cash deposit. The assessee contended that cash payments in the Bank is Rs.27,25,112/ and not Rs.24,33,500/-. The said payments are made for the draft Pay & Accounts Officer of Ministry of I & B Films Division, Mumbai. The said payments was made on behalf of film producers to the film division as he is engaged in the profession of getting Censor, survey of motion pictures and documentary. The AO issued notice u/s 136 to some of the parties for which the assessee made payment to Information Broadcasting Films Division. The notices either came back un-served with the remark of postal authorities “left”. The reply received from Yashraj Films, Virgin Records India Pvt Ltd and Reliance Big Entertainment have been received, wherein they denied having paid anything in cash to the assessee. Thus, the AO concluded that the assessee could not discharge the onus to establish the nexus of cash deposit by him in COSMOS Bank and the AO made an addition of unexplained cash credit of Rs. 24,33,500/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) but without any success, hence, this appeal is filed before us.
We have heard Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of assessee and Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) for Revenue and perused the material available on record. Ld AR of assessee argued that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity by AO to prove the credit in his bank account, and the ld CIT(A) not appreciated the submission made before him and the confirmation of the parties. AR of the assessee further filed an application for admitting the additional evidence consisting of financial statement of wife of assessee’s copy of Bank statement of assessee’s wife, and the reconciliation statement and prayed that the additional evidence is vital and essential for consideration of subject matter in the appeal. Ld. DR of the Revenue has no objection if the additional evidence is admitted and the matter is restored to the file of AO for examination of the evidence filed, at the end of AO.
We have considered the rival contention of the parties and perused the material available on record. We have seen that AO concluded that assessee could not discharge the onus to establish the nexus, cash deposit in the COSMOS Bank. During the First Appellate Proceeding, the assessee filed confirmation letters from five persons. Ld. CIT(A) concluded that all these confirmation are stereo type. No remand report from AO was invited by CIT(A) on filing the confirmation letters. The evidence filed before us were not filed before the lower authorities. Considering the nature of documentary evidence, we deem it appropriate to restore the case to the file of AO to examine the additional evidence filed by assessee before us and pass the fresh order in accordance with law.
In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed for statical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on day of August, 2016.