ITO 23(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. LALITKUMAR THAKKAR AOP, MUMBAI

The appeals filed by the Revenue for the assessment years 2007- 08 and 2008-09 and the appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2007-08 are directed against the order passed by the ld. CIT(A)-11, Mumbai.

At the time of hearing, the ld.AR submitted that the tax effect involved in the appeals filed by the revenue is less than Rs.10 lakhs in both the years. He submitted that the amount of income in dispute is Rs.15,53,560/- for the assessment year 2007-08 and Rs.17,25,450/- for the assessment year 2008-09. Accordingly, he submitted that these appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed, in view of the CBDT Circular No.21/2015 dated 10th December, 2015. The ld. DR agreed that the facts presented by the ld. AR.

Having regard to the circular No.21/2015, dated 10.12.2015 issued by the CBDT directing the AO not to prosecute the appeals filed by the revenue before the Tribunal, in which the tax effect is less than Rs.10 lakhs, these appeals filed by the revenue are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, we dismiss the same.

In the appeal bearing filed by the assessee, the only issue urged by the assessee is with regard to addition of Rs.16,29,805/- made by the AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) on protective basis.

The ld. CIT(A) noticed that the PAN mentioned in the AIR information tallied with PAN of the assessee. Hence, the ld. CIT(A) took the view that the onus is casted upon the assessee to rebut the evidence produced by the AO and accordingly, he confirmed the income of Rs.16,29,805/- estimated by the AO.

The ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee invited our attention to page 4 of the paper book, which contains letter dated 22.3.2010 written by Axis Bank to the Income Tax Officer, and submitted that the bank has certified the aggregate amount of cash deposits made in the banks account maintained by the assessee singly or jointly. Further, the bank has also confirmed that information relating to the deposits of Rs.2.03 crores was erroneously reported due to some technical error. Accordingly, he submitted that the AIR information received by the AO with regard to the deposits of Rs.2.03 crores has been established to be not correct by the letter furnished by the Axis Bank. Accordingly, he submitted that the

The ld. DR, upon considering the letter dated 22.3.2010 issued by the Axis Bank, did not object to the contentions of the ld.AR.

We have heard rival contentions on this issue and perused the record. Admittedly, the assessing officer has estimated the income of Rs.16,29.805/- on the alleged deposit of Rs.2.03 crores on protective basis, since he felt that the letter dated 26.12.2009 written by the Axis Bank stating that there is no such bank account, requires further clarification. From the paper book, we notice that the assessee has raised a query under RTI Act to find out as to whether the assessing officer did make any enquiry to clarify the matter. However, it was replied that the assessing officer has placed his reliance on the letter dated 26.12.2009 referred above and it was further stated that the Axis bank has negated the cash deposit in the bank account, meaning thereby, the assessing officer did make further enquiries. In response to the query raised under the RTI Act, it appears that the copy of letter dated March 22, 2010 written by Axis Bank to the assessing officer was given, wherein the Axis Bank has clearly stated that the information given in Annual Information Return was erroneously reported as Rs.2.03 crores due to some technical error. Thus, it is seen that the assessing officer has clarified the fact relating to erroneous reporting of the information relating to the deposit of Rs.2.03 crores. Under these of facts, the protective addition of Rs.16,29,805/- made by the AO is liable to be deleted. Accordingly, we set aside the order of Ld CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to delete the addition cited above.