ACIT 24(2), MUMBAI v. SHREEDHAM BUILDERS, MUMBAI

ITA 2516/MUM/2011 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 05-07-2013 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 251619914 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN ABDFS0133N
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 2516/MUM/2011
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 4 day(s)
Appellant ACIT 24(2), MUMBAI
Respondent SHREEDHAM BUILDERS, MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 05-07-2013
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted E
Tribunal Order Date 05-07-2013
Date Of Final Hearing 26-06-2013
Next Hearing Date 26-06-2013
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 31-03-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES E MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R K GUPTA JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI N K BILLAIYA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.2516/MUM/2011 : ASST. YEAR 2006-07 THE ACIT 24(2) MUMBAI VS. M/S. SHREEDHAM BUILDERS 104/106 1 ST FLOOR VIJAY INDL. ESTATE NEW LINK ROAD CHINCHOLI BUNDER MALAD(W) MUMBAI- 400 064 PAN ABDFS0133N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : MS.JOTHILAKSHMI NAYAK RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ADITYA MAHESHWARI DATE OF HEARING : 26.06.2013 DATE OF PRONOUN CEMENT :05.07.2013 O R D E R PER N.K.BILLAIYA (AM) : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS PREFERRED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-34 MUMBAI DATED 18.01.2011 PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2006-0 7. THE SOLE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING TH E ADDITION MADE U/S. 68 AMOUNTING TO RS.67 49 000/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS IN B ANK. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO SUBMIT COPIES OF BANK STATEMENTS ALONG WIT H THE RECONCILIATION OF BANK OF RAJASTHAN CURRENT ACCOUNT. ON VERIFYING THE SAID B ANK STATEMENTS THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THERE ARE CASH DEPOSITS OF APP ROXIMATELY RS.67 LACS. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN AND GIVE DETAILS OF C ASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK. THE ASSESSEE FILED A DETAILED REPLY VIDE LETTER DATED 1 9.12.2008 AND SUBMITTED DETAILS OF 2 ITA NO.2516/MUM/2011 AY:2006-07 AMOUNT DEPOSITED INTO THE BANK ALONG WITH SOURCE AN D PURPOSE THEREOF. THE DETAILS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE ARE EXHIBITED AT PAGE 1 AND 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT CASH OF RS.49 94 825/- HAS BEEN RECE IVED FROM THE OUTSTANDING DEBTORS AND REMAINING CASH OF RS.17 54 175 HAS BEEN RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF CASH BOOKING OF FLATS. HOWEVER THE DETAILS AND SUBMISS IONS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING O FFICER WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM BY PROVID ING NECESSARY SUPPORTING EVIDENCES AND WENT ON TO ADD AN AMOUNT OF RS.67 49 000/- U/S. 68 OF THE ACT TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY AGITATED THIS ADDITION BEF ORE THE CIT(A) AND EXPLAINED THAT ASSESSEE HAD OLD OUTSTANDING BROUGHT FORWARD D EBTORS FROM WHOM IT HAS RECEIVED CASH DURING THE YEAR WHICH HAS BEEN DEPOS ITED IN THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT. IT WAS FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN SALES AT RS.35 92 500/- AND THE BALANCE CASH HAS BEEN DEPOSITED OUT OF CASH BOOKINGS OF FLATS DURING THE YEAR. AFTER CONSIDERI NG THE SUBMISSIONS ALONG WITH THE FACTS THE CIT(A) WAS CONVINCED THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS SUCCESSFULLY EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT AND DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.67 49 000/-.THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THIS FINDING OF THE CIT(A) AND IS BEFO RE US. THE LEARNED DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. T HE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED WHAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT(A ). 4. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. WE FIND THAT DURING THE APP ELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE CIT(A) HAD CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER. THE CIT(A) HAS REPRODUCED THE RELEVANT PARA OF THE REMAND REPORT AT PARA 6 PA GE 3 OF HIS ORDER. THE CIT(A) HAS GIVEN HIS FINDING BASED ON THE FACTS EXHIBITED IN THE REMAND REPORT. THE CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE H AD SUFFICIENT DEBTORS AND THE DEBTORS HAVE SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AS COMPARED TO THE OUTSTANDING IN THE IMMEDIATE PREVIOUS YEAR A ND THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIENT CASH BALANCE TO DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCO UNT. SIMILARLY WE FIND THAT THERE 3 ITA NO.2516/MUM/2011 AY:2006-07 IS NO DISPUTE RELATING TO THE SALES AMOUNTING TO RS .35 92 500/- DURING THE YEAR. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ENTI RE SALES HAVE BEEN MADE THROUGH CHEQUE. CONSIDERING ALL THESE FACTS IN TOTALITY W E DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A). 5. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 5 TH JULY 2013. SD/- SD/- (R.K.GUPTA) (N.K.BILLAIYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI DT : 5 TH JULY 2013 SA COPY FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE C.I.T MUMBAI 4. THE CIT (A)-34 MUMBAI 5. THE DR E- BENCH ITAT MUMBAI //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT MUMBAI BENCHES MUMBAI