Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: VAT RATES :: due date for vat payment :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: form 3cd :: empanelment :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: cpt :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: VAT Audit :: TDS
 
 
From the Courts »
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
 M.K.Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-06
 Arshia Ahmed Qureshi Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-21
 CHAUDHARY SKIN TRADING COMPANY Vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-21
  Sushila Devi vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
 Deputy Director Of Income Tax Vs. Virage Logic International
 Commissioner Of Income Tax-3 International Taxation Vs. Virage Logic International India
 Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-06 Vs. Moderate Leasing And Capital Services Pvt. Ltd.
 ITO vs. Vikram A. Pradhan (ITAT Mumbai)

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)
  .. ,      .. ,     

                ./I.T.A. No.5700/Mum/2012
             (   / Assessment Year : 2007-08)

 Jayantilal H Gurjar,            / Income Tax Officer 15(1)(2),
                                                         th
 Shop No.1,                      Vs. 116, Matru Mandir, 4 floor,
 Panchganga Building,                   Tardeo road,
 N M Joshi Marg,                        Mumbai-400007
 Mumbai-400013
       ( /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
                                                             ITA No.5700/M/12
                                     2


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
                                                              ITA No.5700/M/12
                                        3





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
statistical purposes.

The above order was pronounced in the open court on 30th June, 2015.

              30th June, 2015    

       Sd                                               sd

(.. /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.
6.

                                                / BY ORDER,
             True copy
                                               (Asstt. Registrar)
                                     ,  /ITAT, Mumbai

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Binarysoft Technologies - Sitemap

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions