Ajay Verma, Kolkata v. ACIT, CIR-58, KOLKATA, Kolkata

CO 57/KOL/2015 | 2012-2013
Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2016 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 5723523 RSA 2015
Assessee PAN ABXPV0450D
Bench Kolkata
Appeal Number CO 57/KOL/2015
Duration Of Justice 9 month(s) 21 day(s)
Appellant Ajay Verma, Kolkata
Respondent ACIT, CIR-58, KOLKATA, Kolkata
Appeal Type Cross Objection
Pronouncement Date 30-09-2016
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 30-09-2016
Date Of Final Hearing 15-09-2016
Next Hearing Date 15-09-2016
Assessment Year 2012-2013
Appeal Filed On 09-12-2015
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH B KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K.NARSIMHA CHARY JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1364 /KOL/ 2015 & C.O. NO.57/KOL/2015 (A/O ITA NO.1364/KOL/2015) ASSESSMENT YEARS:2012-13 ACIT CIRCLE-58 BAMBOO VILLA 8 TH FLOOR 169 A.J.C. BOSE ROAD KOLKATA-700 014 SHRI AJAY VERMA TOWER-1 APARMENT-404 UTTARA (TRITIYA) RAJARHAT NEW TOWN KOLKATA-700 157 [ PAN NO. ABXPV 0450 D ] / V/S . / V/S . SHRI AJAY VERMA TOWER-1 APARTMENT- 404 UTTARA (TRITIYA) RAJARHT NEW TOWN KOLKATA-57 ACIT CIRCLE-58 BAMBOO VILLA 8 TH FLOOR 169 AJC BOSE ROAD KOLKATA-14 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY ASSESSEE SHRI D.K. DE SARKAR FCA /BY RESPONDENT SHRI ARUP CHATTERJEE JCIT-SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 15-09-2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 30-09-2016 /O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY REVENUE AGAINST THE ORD ER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-18 KOLKATA DATED 15.09.2015 F OR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2012-13 AND THE SAME IS BEING DISPOSED OF ALONG WIT H CROSS OBJECTION (CO) FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEING C.O. NO.57/KOL/2015. ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY ACIT CURCLE- 58 KOLKATA U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 19.03.2015. ITA NO.1364/KOL/2015 & CO 57/KOL/15 A.Y. 2012-13 ACOT CRI-58 KOL VS. SH AJAY VERM A PAGE 2 SHRI D.K. DE SARKAR LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE AND SHRI ARUP CHATTERJEE LD. SENIOR DEPARTMENTAL R EPRESENTATIVE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF REVENUE. FIRST WE TAKE UP REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO.1364/KO L/2015 . 2. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT ASSESSEE IN THE PRES ENT CASE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND HAS FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 23.12.2012 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF 24 10 355/-. THEREAFTER CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND ACCORDINGLY NOTI CE U/S. 143(2) R.W.S 142(1) WERE ISSUED UPON ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED US. 143(3) OF THE ACT ON INCOME OF 99 83 478/- AFTER MAKING CERTAIN ADDITIONS AND DISA LLOWANCES. 3. FIRST ISSUE RAISED BY REVENUE IN GROUND NO.1 IN THIS APPEAL IS THAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OF FICER FOR 62.38 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN FIXED DEPOSIT FOR WHICH THE RELEVANT GROUND IS REPRODUCED BELOW:- (1) THAT THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN DELETIN G RS.62 38 000/- AS INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN FIXED DEPO SIT WHILE IN FACT THE SOURCES OF THE SAID FIXED DEPOSITS WERE NOT EXPLAINED BEFOR E THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS; 4. THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE FIXED DEPOSITS WITH THE ST ATE BANK OF INDIA BEING A/C NO.31951884124 DATED 21.09.2011 FOR 62 38 LACS. AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH ANY EXPLANAT ION IN RESPECT OF AFORESAID DEPOSITS IN THE BANK. THEREFORE AO DISALLOWED THE SAME AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF ASSESSEE. 5. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE L D. CIT(A) WHEREAS ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF FOREIGN COMPAN Y IN USA SINCE MAY 2003 AND SAVED HIS EARNING IN VARIOUS NRI NRO ACCOUNT. THER EAFTER THE ASSESSEE TRANSFERRED HIS SAVINGS TO INDIAN SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT WHEN HE SHIFTED FROM USA IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2010-11. THE AFORESAID DEPOSITS WERE MADE OUT OF INCOME GENERATED DURING THE PERIOD HE STAYED IN USA. THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIMED SUBMITTED THE BANK STATEMENT OF USA ALONG WITH TAX PAYMENT DETAILS. AC CORDINGLY LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY AO. ITA NO.1364/KOL/2015 & CO 57/KOL/15 A.Y. 2012-13 ACOT CRI-58 KOL VS. SH AJAY VERM A PAGE 3 BEING AGGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. BEFORE US BOTH THE PARTIES RELIED ON THE ORDER O F AUTHORITIES BELOW AS FAVOURABLE TO THEM. AT THE OUTSET WE FIND THE ASSE SSEE HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF FIXED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ALONG WITH THE SOURCE O F THE MONEY DEPOSITED IN THE BANK. THE LD. DR HAS NOT BROUGHT ANYTHING ON RECORD CONTR ARY TO THE FINDING OF LD. CIT(A) AND IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). WE HOLD ACCORDINGLY. THIS GROUND OR REV ENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 7. NEXT ISSUE RAISED BY REVENUE IS THAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN GIVING RELIEF TO ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AS VIO LATED THE PROVISION OF RULE 46A OF THE IT RULES 1962 THE EFFECTIVE GROUND IS REPRODU CED BELOW:- (2) THAT THE LD. CIT(APPEALS)HAS VIOLATED THE PROV ISIONS OF RULE 46A OF IT RULES AS ALSO THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE VIZ . AUDIT ALTERAM PARTEM ; 8. AT THE OUTSET WE FIND THAT SUFFICIENT DETAILS W ERE FURNISHED BY ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE SAM E FACT IS DULY RECORDED IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). IN THIS REGARD LD. DR HAS NOT BROUGHT ANYTHING CONTRARY TO THE SUBMISSION MADE BY ASSESSEE BEFORE LD. CIT(A). WE F IND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A). UNDER THE CIRCUMSTAN CES THIS ISSUE OF REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 9. NEXT ISSUE RAISED BY REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL IS T HAT LD. CIT(A) PASSED HIS ORDER WITHOUT GIVING ANY OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO AS SESSING OFFICER. 10. AT THE OUTSET WE FIND FROM THE APPELLATE ORDER THAT THE OPPORTUNITY GIVEN TO THE AO WAS DECLINED. THEREFORE THE ORDER WAS PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT THE PRESENCE OF AO. FROM THE ABOVE FACTS WE FIND THAT OPPORTUNI TY WAS PROVIDED TO THE AO AT THE APPELLATE STAGE WHICH WAS DECLINED BY THE AO. THE L D. DR IN THIS REGARD HAS ALSO NOT BROUGHT ANYTHING CONTRARY TO THE FINDING OF LD. CIT (A). HENCE WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). WE UPHOLD THE SA ME. THIS GROUND OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.1364/KOL/2015 & CO 57/KOL/15 A.Y. 2012-13 ACOT CRI-58 KOL VS. SH AJAY VERM A PAGE 4 11. LAST ISSUE RAISED BY REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL IS THAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN GIVING RELIEF OF THE CLAIM MADE BY ASSESSEE FOR HRA U/S 10 (13A) OF THE ACT FOR WHICH THE RELEVANT GROUND IS REPRODUCED BELOW:- (4) THAT THE LD. CIT(APPEALS)HAD ERRED IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF HRA U/S. 10(13A) AMOUNTING TO RS.3 32 520/- IGNORING THE FAC T THAT THE REQUIRED EVIDENCES WERE NOT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING O FFICER AT THE TIME OF SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS; 12. ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/ S 10(13A) OF THE ACT BUT THE SAME WAS DISALLOWED BY THE AO ON THE GROUND THAT NO DOCUMENTARY WAS FURNISHED BY ASSESSEE. 13. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHO DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY AO. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 14. BEFORE US BOTH PARTIES RELIED ON THE ORDER OF A UTHORITIES BELOW AS FAVOURABLE TO THEM. AT THE OUTSET WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE HAS SUBMI TTED FORM-16 IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION U/S 10(13A) OF THE ACT AND SAID FORM-16 ISSUED BY THE EMPLOYER OF ASSESSEE HAS BEEN MADE AS PART AND PARCEL OF THE APPELLATE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A). IN THIS REGARD LD. DR HAS NOT BROUGHT ANYTH ING ON RECORD CONTRARY TO THE FINDING OF LD. CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY FOLLOWING THE P RECEDENT AS ABOVE WE HOLD THAT THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A ). ACCORDINGLY WE UPHOLD THE SAME. THIS GROUND OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 15. IN THE RESULT REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. COMING TO ASSESSEES CO NO.57/KOL/2015 . 16. GROUND RAISED BY ASSESSEE IS REPRODUCED BELOW:- 1. THE LD. CIT(A)-18 KOLKATA HAS ERRED IN LAW & O N FACTS IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.4 50 000/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUN T OF UN-EXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT INTO BANK ON WRONG & INFIRM INTERPRETATION OF FACT WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN THE ISSUE (I.E NUMEROUS CASH WITHDRAWALS DURING THE YEAR FOR COST OF LEAVING/PERSONAL EXPENDITURES ONLY ) RAISED BY HIM FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE IMPUGNED MATTER WITHOUT ANY M ATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD. ITA NO.1364/KOL/2015 & CO 57/KOL/15 A.Y. 2012-13 ACOT CRI-58 KOL VS. SH AJAY VERM A PAGE 5 17. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR HAS MADE DEPOSITS OF 4.50 LAKH IN ITS SBI ACCOUNT ON 16.03.2012 AND 17.03.2012 RESPECTIVELY. ON QUEST ION BY AO ABOUT THE SOURCE OF SUCH DEPOSITS ASSESSEE FAILED TO MAKE A POSITIVE RE PLY. THEREFORE AO HAS TREATED THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME OF ASSESSEE. 18. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHEREAS ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT CASH WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOU NT OF ASSESSEE OUT OF CASH WITHDRAWALS OF 5.15 LACS. THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM SUB MITTED THE BANK STATEMENT HOWEVER LD. CIT(A) DISREGARDED THE PLEA OF ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- THE OBSERVATION THAT EMANATES IS THAT IN THE HDFC BANK ACCOUNT THE CASH WITHDRAWALS ARE FROM 21.09.2011 TO 22.02.2012. THER E ARE 20 NUMBER OF CASH WITHDRAWALS WITH AVERAGE WITHDRAWAL PER TRANSACTI ONS AT 10 000/-; AND IN THE ICICI BANK ACCOUNT THE CASH WITHDRAWALS ARE FRO M 09.04.2011 TO 16.03.2012. THERE ARE 54 NUMBER OF TRANSACTIONS W ITH AVERAGE WITHDRAWAL RANGING MOSTLY FROM 3 000/- TO 10 000/-. THUS THE OBVIOUS FROM THE FACTS IS OBVIOUS THE N UMEROUS CASH WITHDRAWALS DURING THE YEAR WERE FOR COST OF LIVING/PERSONAL EX PENDITURES ONLY. IT JUST CANNOT BE THAT THE APPELLANT HAD A CURIOUS HOBBY TO MAKE NUMEROUS CASH WITHDRAWALS DURING THE YEAR ONLY TO THEN DEPOSIT AT THE YEAR END AND THAT TOO IN AN ACCOUNT IN ANOTHER BANK. THE 2 CASH DEPOSITS WERE MADE IN THE YEAR END ONE ON 16.03.2012 AT 2 50 00/- AND NEXT DAY ON 17.03.2012 AT 2 00 000/-. THUS THE ARGUMENT OF THE APPELLANT BELIES HUMAN RA TIONALE. EVEN FOR EXTENDED ARGUMENTS SAKE IF AT ALL IT COU LD BE ONLY THE RECENT TRANSACTIONS WHICH I LARGELY EXTEND TO EVEN CONSI DER FROM THE MONTH OF JANUARY 2012 UPTO MARCH 2012 AND THE FACT IS THAT IN THE HDFC ACCOUNT THE WITHDRAWALS ARE AT 55 000/- AND IN THE ICICI BANK AT 48 000/- THE TOTAL OF BOTH COMING TO 1 03 000/- ONLY. FOR 3 MONTHS PERIOD OBVIOUSLY THE SE WITHDRAWALS WERE FOR COST OF LIVING/PERSONAL EXPEND ITURE. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ASSESSE E CAME IN CROSS OBJECTION BEFORE US. 19. BEFORE US LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THA T THE AMOUNT OF 4.50 LACS WAS DEPOSITED OUT OF WITHDRAWAL FROM THE OTHER BANK ACC OUNT THEREFORE HE PRAYED TO BENCH FOR DELETION OF SAME. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. DR VEHEMENTLY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. ITA NO.1364/KOL/2015 & CO 57/KOL/15 A.Y. 2012-13 ACOT CRI-58 KOL VS. SH AJAY VERM A PAGE 6 20. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FROM THE FOREGOING D ISCUSSION WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE HAS WITHDRAWN SMALL AMOUNT OF MONEY FROM HDFC AND ICICI BANKS OVER A PERIOD OF TIMES. HOWEVER THE MONEY HAS BEEN DEPOSITED IN TWO INSTALLMENTS IN A SPAN OF JUST TWO DAYS TIME. LD. AR BEFORE US FAILED TO GIVE THE REASONS WHY ASSESSEE HAS WITHDRAWN MONEY FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT IN SMALL VALU E AND DEPOSITED THE SAME TO THE BANK IN THE FAG-END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR. IN THE A BSENCE OF ANY REASON FOR THE WITHDRAWAL OF MONEY FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT IN SMALL VALUE AND DEPOSITING THE SAME AT THE FAG-END OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WE DO NOT FIND ANY FORCE IN THE ARGUMENT MADE BY AR OF ASSESSEE. THEREFORE WE ARE INCLINED NOT TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). WE HOLD ACCORDINGLY. THIS GROUND OF ASSESSE ES CO IS DISMISSED. 21. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED A ND THAT OF ASSESSEES CO IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 30/09/2016 SD/- SD/- (K.NARSIMHA CHARY) (WASEEM AHMED) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *DKP SR.P.S '#$ - 30/09/2016 / KOLKATA / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. /ASSESSEE-SHRI AJAY VERMA TOWER-1 APARTMENT-404 U TTARA (TRITIYA) RAJARHAT NEW TO WN KOLKATA-157 2. / REVENUE-ACIT CIRCLE-58 169 A.J.C.BOSE ROAD KOL KATA-14 3. ##%& ' / CONCERNED CIT 4. ' - / CIT (A) 5. () ++%& %& / DR ITAT KOLKATA 6. - / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ /TRUE COPY/ / # %&