ITO, Bangalore v. Sri. Syed Ali Murtuza, Bangalore

ITA 814/BANG/2014 | 2009-2010
Pronouncement Date: 31-07-2014 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 81421114 RSA 2014
Assessee PAN AIPPM9386G
Bench Bangalore
Appeal Number ITA 814/BANG/2014
Duration Of Justice 1 month(s) 12 day(s)
Appellant ITO, Bangalore
Respondent Sri. Syed Ali Murtuza, Bangalore
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 31-07-2014
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted C
Tribunal Order Date 31-07-2014
Date Of Final Hearing 23-07-2015
Next Hearing Date 23-07-2015
Assessment Year 2009-2010
Appeal Filed On 18-06-2014
Judgment Text
ITA.814/BANG/2014 PAGE - 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH 'C' BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. ABRAHAM P. GEORGE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. VIJAYPAL RAO JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A NO.814/BANG/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 8(1) BANGALORE .. APPELLANT V. SHRI. SYED ALI MURTUZA L/R SHRI. SYED BASHEER AHMED MALIK NO.135 INFANTRY ROAD CROSS BANGALORE .. RESPOND ENT PAN : AIPPM9386G ASSESSEE BY : SHRI. SYED BASHEER AHMED MALIK (FATHE R OF ASSESSEE) REVENUE BY : SHRI. SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL JCIT HEARD ON : 23.07.2015 PRONOUNCED ON : 31.07.2015 O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : IN THIS APPEAL FILED BY REVENUE DIRECTED AGAINST A N ORDER DT.16.01.2014 OF CIT (A) V BANGALORE FOR A. Y. 2009-10 IT ASSAIL S THE DELETION OF AN ADDITION OF RS.24 40 000/- MADE BY THE AO. 02. FACTS APROPOS ARE THAT ASSESSEE HAVING INCOME F ROM OTHER SOURCES HAD FILED A RETURN DECLARING INCOME OF RS.5 72 510/-. AO RECEIVED INFORMATION THAT ASSESSEE WAS HAVING DEPOSITS IN UNION BANK OF INDIA (UBI IN SHORT) AND KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK (KMB IN SHORT). EXPLANATION FOR THE DEPOSITS WERE SOUGHT. ITA.814/BANG/2014 PAGE - 2 ASSESSEES FATHER FILED A LETTER DT.20.12.2011 WHER EIN IT WAS STATED THAT THE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WERE O UT OF RENTAL INCOME RECEIVED BY HIM DURING THE YEARS 2002 TO 2009. AS PER ASSES SEES FATHER RENTS RECEIVED BY CHEQUES / E-TRANSFERS WERE CREDITED IN A JOINT A CCOUNT IN HIS AND HIS WIFES ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH CANARA BANK LANGFORD TOWN BRANCH AND AMANATH CO-OP BANK SHIVAJINAGAR. AO DID NOT ACCEPT THIS E XPLANATION. ACCORDING TO HIM IF THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT IN ASSESSEES BANK AC COUNTS WERE OUT OF FUNDS RECEIVED BY ASSESSEES FATHER AS RENT THEN ASSESSE ES FATHER COULD HAVE DIRECTLY TRANSFERRED THE MONEY TO ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT AN D NEED NOT HAVE WITHDRAWN CASH. HE THUS HELD THAT CASH DEPOSITS TOTALLING TO RS.11 70 000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN UBI AND CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.12 72 000/- IN KMB TOTALLING TO RS.24 42 000/- WERE UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT FALLING U/S.68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 (THE ACT IN SHORT). ADDITION OF THE SA ID AMOUNT WAS MADE. 03. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE MOVED IN APPEAL BEFORE THE C IT (A). ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT HE AS WELL AS HIS FATHER WERE MUSLIMS WHO CONSIDERED INTEREST AS HARAM. AS PER THE ASSESSEE PROPERTY NO.135 AT INFANTRY ROAD BANGALORE BELONGED TO HIS PARENTS. RENT WAS BEING RECEIVED FROM THIS PROPERTY. FURTHER AS PER THE ASSESSEE PRIOR TO THE YEAR 2009 HE HAD RECEIVED A SUM OF RS.23 LAKHS AS HIS SHARE OF PROCEEDS ON SALE OF A P ROPERTY AT NO.1 8 TH CROSS J. C. ROAD BANGALORE WHICH SALE WAS DONE AFTER OBTAININ G ITCC. ASSESSEE POINTED OUT BEFORE THE CIT (A) THAT BANK DETAILS WERE FURNI SHED BEFORE THE AO. ASSESSEE ALSO PREPARED A CASH-FLOW STATEMENT FOR TH E TWO SB ACCOUNTS DEPOSITS ITA.814/BANG/2014 PAGE - 3 IN WHICH WERE CONSIDERED FOR ADDITION U/S.68 OF THE ACT. ASSESSEE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT HIS FATHER HAD WITHDRAWN A SUM OF RS.27 LA KHS ON 26.09.2007 FROM LATTERS ACCOUNT WITH ABN AMRO BANK WHICH MONEY WA S ALSO AVAILABLE WITH HIM FOR MAKING DEPOSITS IN UBI AND KMB. FURTHER AS PER THE ASSESSEE HE HAD WITHDRAWN A SUM OF RS.22 18 700/- FROM THE ACCOUNT WITH UBI DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. THUS AS PER THE ASSESSEE DEPOSITS TOTALLING TO RS.24 42 000/- STOOD EXPLAINE D. 04. CIT (A) WAS APPRECIATIVE OF THE ABOVE CONTENTIO NS. ACCORDING TO HIM ASSESSEES FATHER HAD GROSS RENTAL AMOUNTS OF RS.55 95 947/- EARNED BY HIM DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO A. YS. 2002-03 TO 2009-10. FURTHER AS PER THE CIT (A) THERE WERE WITHDRAWALS TOTALLING TO RS .12 38 000/- IN THE ACCOUNT WITH UBI AND RS.14 22 000/- IN THE ACCOUNT WITH KMB . IF THESE WITHDRAWALS ALONG WITH THE MONEY STATED TO HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO T HE ASSESSEE BY HIS FATHER WERE CONSIDERED AS PER THE CIT (A) THERE WAS NO R EASON TO MAKE AN ADDITION OF RS.22 42 000/-. TAKING THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER HE DELETED THE ADDITION. 05. NOW BEFORE US LD. DR STRONGLY ASSAILING THE OR DER OF CIT (A) SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE COULD NOT SHOW THE REASON WHY HE RECE IVED CASH OF RS.27 00 000/- FROM HIS FATHER. NEITHER HE COULD SHOW THE REASON AS TO WHY HIS FATHER KEPT THE ACCUMULATED CASH WITH HIM. AS PER THE LD. DR ASSES SEE WAS UNABLE TO SHOW THE NEXUS BETWEEN THE CASH WITHDRAWN AND CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANKS AND THE CIT (A) HAD ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION WITHOUT VERIFICATI ON. HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF CIT (A) HAD BEEN SET ASIDE. ITA.814/BANG/2014 PAGE - 4 06. PER CONTRA ASSESSEES FATHER APPEARING ON BEHA LF OF THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A). HE ALSO BROUGH T TO OUR ATTENTION PAPER BOOK PAGE 54 WHICH WAS HIS BANK ACCOUNT WITH ABN AMRO B ANK WHICH REFLECTED WITHDRAWAL OF RS.27 00 000/- ON 26.09.2007. HE ALS O POINTED OUT THAT CASH- FLOW STATEMENTS AVAILABLE AT PAPER BOOK PAGES 55 AN D 56 WOULD CLEARLY SHOW THAT THERE WAS NO DEFICIENCY IN CASH FOR MAKING THE DEPOSITS. 07. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS AND HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. MAIN SOURCE GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR EXPLAINING THE DEPOSITS I N THE BANK ACCOUNTS DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR ENDING 31.03.2009 IS WITHDRA WAL OF RS.27 LAKHS MADE BY HIS FATHER ON 26.09.2007 FROM LATTERS BANK ACCOUNT . THE COPY OF THE BANK ACCOUNT WITH ABN AMRO BANK PLACED AT PAPER BOOK PA GE 54 EVIDENCES THIS WITHDRAWAL. NODOUBT THERE IS CONSIDERABLE GAP BET WEEN SEPTEMBER 2007 AND APRIL 2008. HOWEVER CONSIDERING THE COMMUNITY TO WHICH ASSESSEE BELONGS WHERE EARNING INTEREST IS NOT CONSIDERED TO BE MORA L THERE IS MUCH STRENGTH IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT MONEY WITHDRAWN A ND KEPT IN HAND. IN ANY CASE A CLEAR FINDING HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE CIT (A) THAT ASSESSEE HAD CASH WITHDRAWAL OF RS.12 38 000/- FROM UBI AND CASH WITH DRAWAL OF RS.14 22 000/- FROM KMB. THESE FINDINGS OF CIT (A) HAS NOT BEEN R EBUTTED BY THE REVENUE. ASSESSEES FATHER HIMSELF HAS STATED THAT THE MONEY WITHDRAWN BY HIM ON 26.09.2007 WAS GIVEN TO HIS SON. WHEN WE CONSIDER ALL THESE ASPECTS IT IS CLEAR THAT THE DEPOSITS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE TWO B ANK ACCOUNTS STOOD WELL EXPLAINED. CASH WITHDRAWALS FROM THE TWO BANK ACCO UNTS IN FACT WERE MORE ITA.814/BANG/2014 PAGE - 5 THAN THE CASH DEPOSITS. THIS BEING THE CASE IN OU R OPINION CIT (A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE WA S NO REASON FOR MAKING ADDITION U/S.68 OF THE ACT. CIT (A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION. WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE. 08. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 ST DAY OF JULY 2015. SD/- SD/- (VIJAYPAL RAO) (ABRAH AM P GEORGE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER