Jayantilal H Gurjar, Shop No.1, Panchganga Building, N M Joshi Marg, Mumbai-400013 Vs. Income Tax Officer 15(1)(2), 116, Matru Mandir, 4th floor, Tardeo road, Mumbai-400007
July, 02nd 2015
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "J" BENCH, MUMBAI
BEFORE S/SHRI I.P. BANSAL, (JM) AND B.R.BASKARAN (AM)
.. , .. ,
( / Assessment Year : 2007-08)
Jayantilal H Gurjar, / Income Tax Officer 15(1)(2),
Shop No.1, Vs. 116, Matru Mandir, 4 floor,
Panchganga Building, Tardeo road,
N M Joshi Marg, Mumbai-400007
( /Appellant) .. ( / Respondent)
. / . /PAN/GIR No. : AACPG0830E
/: Appellant by: Shri V K Tulsiyan
/Respondent by: Shri Love Kumar
/ Date of Hearing :30.6.2015
/Date of Pronouncement :30.6.2015
/ O R D E R
Per B.R.BASKARAN, Accountant Member:
The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated
8.6.2012 passed by the ld. CIT(A)-26, Mumbai for the assessment year
2007-08, wherein he has confirmed the addition of Rs.5,34,801/- made by
the AO under section 68 of the Income Tax act, 1961.
2. We heard the parties and perused the record. The AO noticed that
the assessee has deposited cash in two bank accounts aggregating to
Rs.20,64,994/-. The assessee furnished the details of cash received only to
the extent of Rs.15,30,193/-. Hence, the AO assessed the difference of
Rs.5,34,801/- as income of the assessee under section 68 of the Act.
3. Before the ld.CIT(A), the assessee submitted that there was a
mistake in the working of cash receipts. It was submitted that the cash
withdrawals from the bank was shown at Rs.1,53,946/- whereas the
actual withdrawals made worked out to Rs.14,39,640/-. Accordingly, it
was pleaded that there is no requirement of making any addition, if the
cash withdrawals is taken at correct figure of Rs.14,39,640/-. However,
the ld.CIT(A) took the view that the assessee has changed his stand to
make futile attempt to explain otherwise unexplained cash deposits.
Accordingly, he took the view that the assessee's stand is an afterthought
and accordingly confirmed the addition made by the AO.
4. The ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that there was
genuine clerical mistake in computing cash withdrawal which can be
verified from the bank statement and hence the ld.CIT(A) was not justified
in considering the same as it was after thought.
5. On the other hand, the ld. DR submitted that the assessee has failed
to explain the source of bank deposits and hence the addition was made.
6. Having heard the rival submissions, we are of the view that, in the
interest of natural justice, the assessee should be given one more
opportunity to properly explain the cash withdrawals made from the bank.
We notice the ld. CIT(A) has rejected the claim of the assessee that cash
withdrawals were to the extent of Rs.14,39,640/-, even without examining
the relevant bank statements and workings, which in our opinion is not
justified. Therefore, we are of the view that the ld.CIT(A) should have
examined the claim of the assessee by duly verifying / asking the AO to
verify the same with the bank statements and then should have taken the
proper decision. Under these set of facts, we are of the view that this
issue requires fresh examination at the end of the ld.CIT(A) by duly
considering the bank statements, workings and explanation of the
assessee. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and restore
this issue back to his file for fresh consideration..
7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for
The above order was pronounced in the open court on 30th June, 2015.
30th June, 2015
(.. /I.P. BANSAL) (.. / B.R. BASKARAN)
/ Judicial Member /Accountant Member
Mumbai: 30th June, 2015.
. ../ SRL , Sr. PS
/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. / The Appellant
2. / The Respondent.
3. () / The CIT(A)- concerned
4. / CIT concerned
5. , , /
DR, ITAT, Mumbai concerned
/ Guard file.
/ BY ORDER,
, /ITAT, Mumbai