BIPIN S. BAROT, MUMBAI v. DCIT 9(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1091/MUM/2013 | 2009-2010
Pronouncement Date: 31-07-2015 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 109119914 RSA 2013
Assessee PAN AAACN0775B
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 1091/MUM/2013
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 23 day(s)
Appellant BIPIN S. BAROT, MUMBAI
Respondent DCIT 9(2), MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 31-07-2015
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 31-07-2015
Date Of Final Hearing 21-04-2015
Next Hearing Date 21-04-2015
Assessment Year 2009-2010
Appeal Filed On 07-02-2013
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH B MUMBAI. BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY GARG JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO 1091/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: - 2009-10 SHRI BIPIN S. BAROT 01 ST FLOOR YOGIKRUPA 14 JAWAHARNAGAR S.V. ROAD GOREGAON (WEST) MUMBAI 62. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 9(2) AAYKAR BHAVAN M.K. ROAD MUMBAI 400 020. PAN/GIR NO. AAACN0775B APPELLANT RESPONDENT ORDER PER G.S. PANNU AM THE CAPTIONED APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AG AINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) [HEREINAFTER R EFERRED TO AS THE CIT(A)] DATED 9.11.2012 WHICH IN-TURN HAS ARISEN FROM AN ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961(HEREINAFTER ASSESSEE BY MS. RENU GAMI REVENUE BY SHRI YOGESH KAMAT DATE OF HEARING 10 .06.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 31 .07.2015 2 ITA NO 1091/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: - 2009-10 PAGE 2 OF 6 REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) DATED 30.12.2011 PERTAINI NG TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009- 10. 2. IN THIS APPEAL ALTHOUGH ASSESSEE HAS RAISED MUL TIPLE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BUT THE SOLITARY GRIEVANCE IS WITH RESPECT TO AN AD DITION OF RS. 15 14 313/- MADE TO THE RETURNED INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAIN ED CASH DEPOSITS. 3. IN BRIEF THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE THAT ASSESSEE I S AN INDIVIDUAL WHO FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 DECLAR ING AN INCOME OF RS. 1 12 78 214/-. ASSESSEE DECLARED INCOME UNDER VARIO US HEADS VIZ. SALARY INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY BUSINESS INCOME CAPITA L GAINS AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AS WELL AS EXEMPT AGRICULTURAL INCOME . IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTIC ED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED CASH IN BANK AMOUNTING TO RS. 15 14 313/- ON VARIOUS DATES STARTING FROM 17.01.2009 TO 18.03.2009. THE ASSESSING OFFICE R REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF CASH DEPOSITS WITH SUPPORTIN G EVIDENCE. IN RESPONSE ASSESSEE FURNISHED COPY OF THE CASH BOOK FOR THE YE AR UNDER CONSIDERATION ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS IN T HE BANK ACCOUNT WAS SOUGHT TO BE EXPLAINED. IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE T HAT CASH WAS DEPOSITED OUT OF OPENING CASH BALANCE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND SU RPLUS FROM CASH WITHDRAWN DURING THE YEAR FROM THE BANK. THE EXPLA NATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER PRIMARILY ON THE GROUND THAT THE TOTAL AGRICULTURAL INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS RS. 4 75 689/- AND THAT SUCH INCOME WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE I N THE FIRST AND LAST QUARTER OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WHEREAS THE CASH W AS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK 3 ITA NO 1091/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: - 2009-10 PAGE 3 OF 6 DURING THE PERIOD JANUARY TO MARCH 2009. ACCORDINGL Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE CASH DEPOSITS AMOUNTING TO RS. 15 14 31 3/- AS UNEXPLAINED AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME. THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO AFFIRMED THE ADDITION AGAINST WHICH ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. IN THE ABOVE BACKGROUND THE RIVAL PARTIES HAVE MADE THEIR SUBMISSIONS. THE PLEA OF APPELLANT-ASSESSEE IS THAT THE EXPLANAT ION RENDERED HAS BEEN UNJUSTLY REJECTED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES INASMUCH AS THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ALONG WITH SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHICH CLEARLY DEMO NSTRATED AVAILABILITY OF CASH IN ORDER TO MAKE THE IMPUGNED DEPOSITS IN BANK . 5. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. DR APPEARING FOR THE REVENUE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE EX PLANATION BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THEREFORE THE SAME HAS BEEN REJE CTED. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. OSTEN SIBLY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE IMPUGNED CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT HAVE BEEN MADE OUT OF THE CASH AVAILABLE WITH HIM. THE AFORES AID WAS SOUGHT TO BE SUBSTANTIATED ON THE BASIS OF CASH BOOK MAINTAINED FOR THE PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION I.E. 01.04.2008 TO 31.03.2009. A COPY OF THE SUCH CASH BOOK HAS ALSO BEEN PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK FILED BEFORE US AT PAGES 3 TO 8. BY REFERRING TO THE SPECIFIC SOURCES THE PLEA OF ASSESSEE WAS T HAT CASH DEPOSITS IN BANK CAME OUT OF THE OPENING CASH BALANCE AGRICULTURAL INCOME EARNED AND THE SURPLUS FROM CASH WITHDRAWN DURING THE YEAR FROM TH E BANK WHICH WAS 4 ITA NO 1091/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: - 2009-10 PAGE 4 OF 6 AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT THE EXPL ANATION RENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN MERELY DISBELIEVED AND IT IS NOT A CASE WHERE THE EXPLANATION HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE FALSE OR OTHERWISE UNTENABLE. IN FACT ONE OF THE PRINCIPAL ARGUMENTS EMERGING FROM THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IS WITH REGARD TO THE DOUBTFUL NATURE OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE OF RS. 4 75 689/-. IN THIS CONTEXT THE LD . REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS REFERRED TO THE PAPER BOOK TO POINT OU T THAT ASSESSEE WAS POSSESSING ADEQUATE AGRICULTURAL LANDS AND HE HAS A LSO REFERRED TO THE RECEIPTS OF LAND REVENUE TAX PAID AS WELL AS TRACTOR BILLS FERTILIZERS BILLS AND SALE VOUCHERS ETC TO SHOW THAT MONEY WAS SPENT ON AGRICU LTURAL OPERATIONS AND THAT AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE WAS ALSO SOLD WHICH HAD R ESULTED IN INCOME OF RS. 4 75 689/-. IN THIS CONTEXT THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE REFERRED TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 AND 2008-09 WHEREIN THE AGRICULTURA L INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ACCEPTED. COPIES OF SUCH ASSESSME NT ORDERS HAVE BEEN PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK. A PERUSAL OF SUCH ASSESSM ENT ORDERS REVEAL THAT THE INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE INSTANT YEAR IS ON A SIMILAR FOOTING. THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE HAV E NOT BEEN REJECTED INASMUCH AS THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED HIS CASH BOOK IN SUPPORT OF THE AVAILABILITY OF CASH ON VARIOUS DATES FOR MAKING TH E IMPUGNED DEPOSITS IN THE BANK. THERE IS NO ADVERSE FINDING IN THIS REGARD I N THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. ANOTHER ASPECT OF THE MATTER IS THAT THE OP ENING CASH BALANCE AS PER THE CASH BOOK CORRESPONDS TO THE BALANCE-SHEET AS O N 31.03.2008 WHICH WAS ANNEXED TO THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2008-09 AND THERE 5 ITA NO 1091/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: - 2009-10 PAGE 5 OF 6 IS NO ADVERSE FINDING ON THIS ASPECT. THE AVAILABIL ITY OF THE OPENING CASH BALANCE IS PROVED AND WE FIND NO REASONS TO REJECT THE SAME. 7. CONSIDERED IN THE AFORESAID LIGHT IN THE ABSENC E OF ANY MATERIAL TO REBUT THE CASH POSITION SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASI S OF ITS CASH BOOK FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WE FIND THAT THE LOWER A UTHORITIES HAVE UNJUSTLY CONSIDERED THE IMPUGNED CASH DEPOSITS AS UNEXPLAINE D. ACCORDINGLY THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IS SET ASIDE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. 08. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSED IS ALLOWE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 31 D AY OF JULY 2015. SD/- SD/- (SANJAY GARG) (G.S. PANNU) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ) MUMBAI DATED 31-07-2015 SKS SR. P.S COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CONCERNED CIT(A) THE CONCERNED CIT THE DR BBENCH ITAT MUMBAI BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES MUMBAI