PRASHANT RANJANE, MUMBAI v. ITO 23(1)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 2458/MUM/2013 | 2002-2003
Pronouncement Date: 10-07-2013 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 245819914 RSA 2013
Assessee PAN ADRPR0252M
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 2458/MUM/2013
Duration Of Justice 3 month(s) 9 day(s)
Appellant PRASHANT RANJANE, MUMBAI
Respondent ITO 23(1)(3), MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 10-07-2013
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted SMC
Tribunal Order Date 10-07-2013
Assessment Year 2002-2003
Appeal Filed On 01-04-2013
Judgment Text
. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R. K. GUPTA JM ITA NO. 2458 / MUM/ 20 1 3 ( ASSESSMENT Y EAR : 200 2 - 20 0 3 ) PRASHANT RANJANE B - 102 HEMA PARK VEER SAVARKAR MAR G BHANDUP (E) MUMBAI - 42 VS. ITO 23(1)(3) MUMBAI - 51 PAN/GIR NO. : A DRPR 0252 M ( APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) /ASS ESSEE BY : SHRI JITENDRA SINGH & SHRI SATENDRA PANDEY /REVENUE BY : SHRI O.P.SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 1 ST JULY 201 3 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10 TH JULY 2013 O R D E R TH IS APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15 - 1 - 2013 OF CIT(A) - 1 9 MUMBAI RELA TING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 2 - 0 3 . 2 . THE FIRST ISSUE IS AGAINST CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 52 115/ - UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. 3. DURING TH E ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING THE AO NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE CERTAIN CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK. THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN THE CASH DEPOSITS. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RECONCILIATION AND OTHER DETAILS THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ABLE TO EXPLAIN CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 52 115/ - AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE CASH AVAILABILITY AND OTHER DEPOSITS THE AO FOUND THAT TO THIS EXTENT THE CASH DEPOSIT REMAINED UNEXPLAINED ACCORDINGLY HE MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 52 115/ - . ITA NO. 2458 /20 1 3 2 4 . IN APPEAL LEARNED CIT(A) A LSO CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO. 5 . AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION AND PERUSING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD WE FOUND THAT THE AO HAS NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE WITHDRAWAL OF RS. 50 000/ - MADE FROM THE SAME ACCOUNT ON 10 - 4 - 2001 . IT IS FURTHER SEEN T HAT IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THERE WAS NO OTHER DEPOSIT EXCEPT A SUM OF RS. 71 500/ - IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. AS ON 30 - 3 - 2001 THE BANK BALANCE WAS OF RS. 67 105/ - . ON 10 - 4 - 2001 THE ASSESSEE HAS WITHDRAWN RS. 50 000/ - . THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE DEPOSITED A CASH OF RS. 71 500/ - . THE AO HAS NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE WITHDRAWAL OF RS. 50 000/ - FROM THE BANK WHICH WAS USED FOR THE DEPOSIT FROM THE BANK. KEEPING IN MIND THE WITHDRAWAL OF RS. 50 000/ - WHICH WAS WITHDRAWN ON 10 - 4 - 2001 AND WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE AS EXPLAINED BY THE LEARNED AR DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDING HOWEVER NO SOURCE HAS BEEN EXPLAINED THAT FROM WHICH SOURCE THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS. 21 500/ - WAS MADE. THEREFORE TO THIS EXTENT THE ADDITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE AND NOT OF RS. 52 115/ - . ACCORDINGLY I RESTRICT THE ADDITION TO RS. 21 500/ - AGAINST RS. 52 115/ - SUSTAINED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) . THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED IN PART. 6 . THE NEXT GROUND IS AGAINST CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 60 000/ - UNDER SECTION 68 OF T HE ACT. 7 . DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING THE AO NOTICED THAT THERE IS AN INVESTMENT OF RS. 60 000/ - IN NSC. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE AMOUNT IS DULY REFLECTED IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME AND ALSO IN THE SALARY STATEMENT. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE AMOU NT OF RS. 60 000/ - WAS PAID FROM THE SALARY RECEIVED FROM ROTA INDIA LIMITED . THE AO NOTED THAT THE ITA NO. 2458 /20 1 3 3 AMOUNT OF RS. 60 000/ - IS REFLECTED IN THE SALARY STATEMENT AND IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME BUT IT IS NOT REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET UNDER THE HEAD LOANS AND INVESTMENTS. THEREFORE THE AMOUNT IS TREATED AS INVESTED FROM UNEXPLAINED SOURCE. ACCORDINGLY THE ADDITION OF RS. 60 000/ - WAS MADE BY THE AO WHICH HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) ALSO. 8 . AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION I FOUND THAT TH E ASSESSEE DESERVE TO SUCCEED ON THIS GROUND. I NOTED THAT THE AO HAS HIMSELF ADMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 60 000/ - WAS REFLECTED IN THE SALARY STATEMENT WHICH WAS INVESTED OUT OF SALARY INCOME. THEREFORE THERE IS NO QUESTION OF TREATING THE SAME FROM UNEXPLAINED SOURCE. IF DUE TO MISTAKE THE INVESTMENT IS NOT SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET WHICH DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE INVESTMENT IN NSC HAS BEEN MADE FROM UNEXPLAINED SOURCE. THE SOURCE HAS BEEN EXPLAINED AND HAS BEEN ADMITTED BY THE AO ALSO IN HIS ORDER. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE I DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 60 000/ - . 9 . IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED IN PART . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 10 TH DAY OF JU LY .2013 SD/ - ( ) ( R.K.GUPTA ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 10/07 / 2013 /PKM PS ITA NO. 2458 /20 1 3 4 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / TH E RESPONDENT. 3. / THE CIT(A) MUMBAI. 4. / CIT 5. / DR ITAT MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER ( ASSTT. REGISTRAR) / ITAT MUMBAI