9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 776X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... For The Assessee : Shri Mayur A Shah ORDER PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M) : This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of CIT(A)-30, Mumbai dated 30/01/2017 for A.Y.2009-10 in the matter of order passed u/s.143(3) of the IT Act. 2. In this appeal, revenue is aggrieved for deleting the addition of ₹ 47,53,037/- on account of cash deposited in the bank. 3. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. 4. Facts in brief are that the assessee is an individual filed the return of income for the year under consideration on 06/07/2009, declaring total income of ₹ 1,37,580/-. The case was reopened u/s 147, by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on 05-02-2014, on the basis of information received from the CIB that assessee deposited cash of ₹ 43,51,500/- in her savings bank account no. 6155 held with Janakalyan Sahakari Bank Ltd., Tulsiwadi branch. Assessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, was completed by the Ld. AO on 19-03-2015, determining the total income at Rs. 48,90,620/-. In response to the notice issued, AR submitted that the cash deposited in the account does not belong to the deceased assessee. He has also deni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f principles of natural Justice. ITO erred in bringing to tax the sum of ₹ 47,53,033/- representing as the unaccounted income of the assessee, which has been already brought to tax in the hands of Gem Corporation, the addition of the same income in paying in the hands of the appellant amounting to taxing the same income twice in violation of the fundamental principles of taxation. In view of the above reasons it is prayed that the assessment be held to be bad in law and the said addition be directed to be deleted. 7.1 While making the addition, AO relied on the information received from the office of the GIB, with regard to the cash deposited in the savings bank account of ₹ 43,51,500/- and the bank statement called for from the bank which shows cash deposits of ₹ 47,51,500/- during the F.Y. 2008-09 and interest payment of ₹ 1,537/-. Though the appellant's legal heir contends that the same is a benami account and cash deposited in question was made by Bharat Shah owner of M/s Gem Corporation, the AO not accepted the contentions stating that the appellant has not explained the source of the information, banks do not open accept huge deposits withou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is no business connection between the appellant and M/s Gem Corporation as alleged by the AO and it is submitted that gross injustice has been done in bringing to tax the said cash deposits of a third party giving flimsy reasons. The addition is made overlooking the submissions made and without making any inquiries and without application of mind and AO has no valid reasons to make the said additions. In view of the above facts and judicial decisions it is prayed that the addition to the returned income be directed to be deleted. 7.3 I have carefully considered the rival contentions on the issue and the material evidences produced in the form of assessment order passed in the case of M/s Gem Corporation, where the said cash deposit was assessed by the AO of that firm. In the present case, as per the CIB information the appellant deposited an amount of ₹ 43,51,500/-, whereas the statement of the account called for from the bank, it is confirmed that cash deposited in the appellant's account during the year under consideration is Rs. 47,51,500/- and interest payment is ₹ 1,537/- thus the total amount of credit in the account is Rs. 47,53,037/-. The appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the person, as they are bound by various statutory regulatory bodies. In the present case the account is held with a Co-operative Bank and in the present day scenario it is seen that several co-operative banks are colluding with big customers and flouting the banking norms stipulated by the regulatory authorities. The other contention of the AO is that no complaint is filed by the legal heir with various authorities and no proof to establish that there is no business relationship with the purported benami holder. In view of the same the amount is considered as the unaccounted income in the hands of the deceased appellant. This reason given by the AO is nothing to do with the cash deposit issue and the same cannot prove that the said cash deposits belongs to the appellant. 7.5 On careful perusal of the assessment order of M/s Gem Corporation, it is found that the issue of cash deposits in different accounts was clearly discussed in page No. 4 to 7 of the order. Assessing Officer of M/s Gem Corporation, elaborately discussed the issue of cash deposits made in seven bank accounts wherein the name of the appellant- late Kamalaben Parekh- is also available. AO also mentioned the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the above, I am not in a position to agree with the reasoning and the findings of the AO for making the addition in the hands of the deceased appellant, and as seen from the assessment order most of the reasons given by the AO are on the basis of presumptions and assumptions, the addition made is accordingly, 'Deleted'. Appellant succeeds on Ground Nos. 3 to 8 of the appeal which are treated as 'Allowed'. 6. I have considered rival contentions and carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below and found that the saving account neither belong to assessee nor opened by the assessee. The CIT(A) has categorically recorded a finding to the effect that the cash so deposited belonging to M/s. Gem Corporation and during the assessment of Gem Corporation, it was added in the income of Gem Corporation. As the amount so deposited had already been brought to tax in the hands of Gem Corporation, making addition of the same amount in assessee s hands amounts to double addition. The detailed finding so recorded by CIT(A) at para 4 has not been controverted by learned DR by bringing any positive material on record. Accordingly, I do not find any reason to interfer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
