G. Rajasekhar, Bangalore v. ITO, Bangalore

ITA 93/BANG/2016 | 2010-2011
Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2016 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 9321114 RSA 2016
Assessee PAN AFCPR5285B
Bench Bangalore
Appeal Number ITA 93/BANG/2016
Duration Of Justice 8 month(s) 1 day(s)
Appellant G. Rajasekhar, Bangalore
Respondent ITO, Bangalore
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-09-2016
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted C
Tribunal Order Date 30-09-2016
Assessment Year 2010-2011
Appeal Filed On 29-01-2016
Judgment Text
ITA.93/BANG/2016 PAGE - 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU BENCH 'C' BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI. VIJAY PAL RAO JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI. S. JAYARAMAN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A NO.93/BANG/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) SHRI. G. RAJASEKHAR NO.424 GURUPRIYA UPKAR RESIDENCY 80 FT. ROAD ULLAL BENGALURU 560 056 .. APPEL LANT PAN : AFCPR5285B V. INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD 14(5) BENGALURU .. RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI. B. S. BALACHANDRAN ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SHRI. C. ERANNA JCIT HEARD ON : 10.08.2016 PRONOUNCED ON : .10.2016 O R D E R PER S. JAYARAMAN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE CIT (A)-5 BENGALURU DT.10.09.2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 02. ASSESSEE A SALARIED EMPLOYEE FILED HIS RETURN DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1 47 240/- CONSISTING OF SALARY INCOME OF RS. 1 60 000/- BEFORE CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER CHAPTER VIA OF THE ACT FOR THIS ASST. YEAR. BASED ON AIR INFORMATION THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.60 58 900/- IN ICICI BANK. THE ASSESSEE COULD N OT FURNISH DETAILS WITH ITA.93/BANG/2016 PAGE - 2 REGARD TO SOURCES OF SUCH CASH DEPOSITS BEFORE THE AO AND HENCE THE AO ASSESSED RS.60 58 900/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U /S.69 OF THE ACT. 03. ON APPEAL THE CIT (A)-V BENGALURU HELD AS UN DER : ITA.93/BANG/2016 PAGE - 3 ITA.93/BANG/2016 PAGE - 4 04. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE FILED THIS APPEAL BEFO RE THIS TRIBUNAL. GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED ARE AS UNDER : I) THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY IS NOT MAINTAIN ABLE ON LAW AND FACTS AND IS UNJUSTIFIED AND CONTRARY TO TH E EVIDENCES ON RECORD. II) THE LEARNED AUTHORITIES ERRED IN MAKING ADDITIO N OF RS.60 58 900/- III) THE LEARNED AUTHORITIES ERRED IN CONFIRMING TH E SAID ADDITION WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE APP ELLANT HAS PROVED IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PERSON TO WHOM THIS TRANSACTION BELONGS AND IN VIEW OF THIS UNDISPUTED FACTS THE LEARNED AUTHORITY OUGHT TO HAVE ORDERED DELETION OF THE ADDITIONS MADE. 05. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PROD UCED A CONFIRMATION LETTER BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES WHICH STATES THAT THESE MONIES WERE DEPOSITED BY SHRI. N. H. BHASKAR REDDY (PAN ACPPN 7912A) EMPLOYER OF THE APPELLANT AND THE AMOUNTS ARE WITHDRAWN AND USE D BY THE EMPLOYER FOR HIS BUSINESS PURPOSES. THE LETTER FURTHER STATES T HAT THESE DEPOSITS ARE DULY ACCOUNTED IN THE BOOKS OF THE EMPLOYER AND THE RETU RN OF INCOME IS ALSO FILED BY THE EMPLOYER. THUS THE IDENTITY OF THE PARTY AND CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE PARTY ARE SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED IN AS MUC H AS THIS FACTS ARE UNDISPUTED. THERE IS NO FURTHER BURDEN ON THE ASSE SSEE TO BE DISCHARGED IN THIS REGARD. AS JUDICIALLY SETTLED WHEN THE IDENTI TY AND CREDIT WORTHINESS ARE PROVED NO ADDITIONS CAN BE MADE. 06. FURTHER THE LD. AR PLEADED THAT THE ALTERNATE PLEA TAKEN BEFORE THE CIT (A) THAT THE AO HAS FAILED TO CONSIDER THAT AT BEST ONLY A PEAK CREDIT OF RS.38 11 518/- CAN BE CONSIDERED U/S.69 OF THE ACT AND THAT THE AO FAILED ITA.93/BANG/2016 PAGE - 5 TO APPRECIATE THAT RS.60 58 900/- OR EVEN THE PEAK CREDIT OF RS.28 11 518/- MADE IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2009-10 CANNOT BE ASSESSED I N THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69 OF THE ACT AND HENCE THE ADDITION MAY BE DELETED. PER CONTRA THE DR RELIE D ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 07. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS GONE THROUGH THE RELEVANT ORDERS AND MATERIAL . IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE T HAT THE CASH CREDITS ARE IN THE ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT HE HAS NOT PRODUCED THE REQUIRED DOCUMENTS TO PROVE THAT HIS EMPLOYER HAS DISCLOSED THE IMPUGN ED BANK ACCOUNT IN HIS RETURN ETC. AS HELD BY THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE W HO HAS EXCLUSIVE KNOWLEDGE ON THESE TRANSACTIONS HAS NOT DISCLOSE D RELEVANT FACTS AND HENCE HIS CLAIM STANDS UNSUBSTANTIATED . FURTHER HIS ALTERNATE PLEA SEEKING PEAK OF CREDITS ALSO MAKES A GROUND FOR SUSTAINING THE ADDITION. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THE ADDITION MADE IS JUSTIFIED. IT IS ALSO CLEAR FROM THE EXTRACTS OF THE DEPOSITS AND WITHDRAWALS SUPRA TH AT THE IMPUGNED CASH DEPOSITS WERE MADE DURING THE PERIOD RELEVANT TO TH IS ASST YEAR AND HENCE THE ADDITION MADE IN THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR IS PROPER . HOWEVER THE CLOSENESS OF THE DEPOSITS AND ITS IMMEDIATE WITHDRA WALS IN THE ABOVE EXTRACT MAKE A PLAUSIBLE GROUND FOR TELESCOPING OF THE CREDITS AS PLEADED BY THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE AO HAS NOT FOUND ANY OTHER UNEXPLAINED CREDITS OR ASSETS WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE APPELLANTS ALT ERNATE PLEA MERITS . SINCE THE PEAK OF CREDITS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS.3 8 11 518/ IS NOT APPARENTLY VERIFIED BY THE REVENUE THE AO IS DIR ECTED TO WORK OUT THE ITA.93/BANG/2016 PAGE - 6 CORRECT PEAK OF CREDITS FROM THE BANK STATEMENTS E TC AFFORD AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AND THEN ASSESS IT ACC ORDINGLY. 08. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED PARTLY. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 7 TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016. SD/- SD/- (VIJAY PAL RAO) (S. JAYARAMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER A CCOUNTANT MEMBER MCN* COPY TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD- 11(4) BENGALURU 3. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 5 BENGAL URU 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A)-V BENGALURU 5. DR 6. GF ITAT BANGALORE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR