Vineet Sharma v. Income-tax Officer, Ward No 24(1)(2), Mumbai
[Citation -2016-LL-0921-164]

Citation 2016-LL-0921-164
Appellant Name Vineet Sharma
Respondent Name Income-tax Officer, Ward No 24(1)(2), Mumbai
Court ITAT-Mumbai
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 21/09/2016
Assessment Year 2009-10
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags reasonable opportunity • undisclosed investment • undisclosed income • gross receipt • real estate
Bot Summary: Subsequently the case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and after serving statutory notices and receiving reply from the assessee assessment order was passed by AO thereby making additions u/s 69A of the Act,1961 by considering the peak amount of Rs.11,00,000/- of cash sales cheque deposited by the assessee and further addition of Rs.35,000/- was also made on the ground that the assessee failed to prove by way of documentary evidence that said amount of Rs.35,000/- as commission receipt and was forming part of gross receipt. 69A of the IT Act, 1961, as undisclosed income will lead to double taxation in the hands of the assessee, causing undue hardships to the assessee, which we request your goodself not to add to the taxable income of the assessee. Vineet Sharma Vs. ITO taxation in the hands of the assessee, thereby causing undue hardships to him, which we request your goodself not to add to the taxable income of the assessee. We continue with our stand that the learned assessing officer has added again the same income which was already disclosed in his return of income treating it as undisclosed income and investment, basis which we request your goodself not to add the bank deposits into income of the assessee. 6.2 From the co-joint reading of the impugned order as well as arguments raised by assessee we observe that the CIT(A) has rejected the claim of the assessee citing the absence of documentary evidence as well as in the absence of satisfactory explanation. After considering the arguments of both the parties and the submissions documents and evidences filed by the assessee before the authorities below as mentioned in para 6.2 of this order, we observe that the CIT(A)/AO have not examined or considered the documents filed by assessee. CIT(A) are to be set aside and the matter be restored back to the file of AO to examine and verify the documents filed by assessee and to adjudicate thereon after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee.


IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL F BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JASON P. BOAZ, AM AND SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM I.T.A. No. 3593/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Shri Vineet Sharma Income Tax Officer Ward No B-303, Garden Estate, Bhagat Singh 24(1)(2), Nagar, Part-2, Opp. Vibgyor School, Room No.608, C-13, 6th Floor, Link Road, Goregaon (West), Vs. Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Mumbai-400 062. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai. PAN/GIR No. ATLPS 0343N ( Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Vishwas Mehendale Respondent by : None : 16/09/2016 Date of Hearing : 21/09/2016 Date of Pronouncement O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain, Judicial Member: Present Appeal has been filed by assessee against order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 34, dated 24.02.2014 on grounds of appeal mentioned herein below. 2 ITA No. 3593/Mum/2014(A.Y. 2009-10) Shri. Vineet Sharma Vs . ITO 1. On facts and circumstances of case and in law, Hon ble CIT(A)-34, has erred in confirming addition of Rs.11,35,000/- being peak amount, as undisclosed investment u/s 69A by overlooking fact that, source of funds was properly explained during course of appellate proceedings before Hon. CIT-A. 2. brief facts of case are that assessee being individual is Real Estate Broker and Consultant. During year under consideration, assessee derived income from business. assessee has filed return of income on 27.07.09 declaring total income of Rs.4,01,260/-. return was processed u/s 143(1) of IT Act,1961. Subsequently case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and after serving statutory notices and receiving reply from assessee assessment order was passed by AO thereby making additions u/s 69A of Act,1961 by considering peak amount of Rs.11,00,000/- of cash sales cheque deposited by assessee and further addition of Rs.35,000/- was also made on ground that assessee failed to prove by way of documentary evidence that said amount of Rs.35,000/- as commission receipt and was forming part of gross receipt. 3. Aggrieved by order of AO, assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) and CIT(A) after considering case of assessee dismissed appeal of assessee vide order dated 24.02.2014. 3 ITA No. 3593/Mum/2014(A.Y. 2009-10) Shri. Vineet Sharma Vs . ITO 4. Aggrieved by order of CIT(A), assessee filed present appeal before us on grounds mentioned herein above. 5. only ground raised before us by assessee is that he CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs.11,35,000/- being peak amount as undisclosed investment u/s 69A by overlooking fact that, source of funds was properly explained during course of appellate proceedings before CIT(A). 6. We have heard counsels for both parties on this ground and we have also perused material placed on record as well as orders passed by revenue authorities. Ld. AR appearing on behalf of assessee has taken same arguments which he had submitted before CIT(A) and same is also reproduced in para no.3 of CIT(A) order. 3. During course of appellate proceedings appellant has made following submissions. nature of business of assessee is of real estate agency, wherein he has received his share of commission into his bank directly in form of cash & cheque, from another local broker Ms. Renu Agarwal directly, who was also part of same deal of property situated outside Mumbai. Her PAN number was already submitted to assessing officer. These deposits are already part of gross receipts credited to Income & Expenditure Account totaling to Rs. 21,57,960/-. Thus adding them again to income u/s. 69A of IT Act, 1961, as undisclosed income will lead to double taxation in hands of assessee, causing undue hardships to assessee, which we request your goodself not to add to taxable income of assessee. To prove commission of Rs. 35,000/- is already included in income- assessee has received Rs. 31,395/- into his bank by cheque from M/s. Infra Dredge on 13/01/2009. This amount is commission of Rs. 350001- after TDS @ 10.3%. same is visible in appellant form 26AS. same is already included in gross receipts credited to his income & expenditure account & adding same again u/s. 69A as undisclosed investment, will lead to double 4 ITA No. 3593/Mum/2014(A.Y. 2009-10) Shri. Vineet Sharma Vs . ITO taxation in hands of assessee, thereby causing undue hardships to him, which we request your goodself not to add to taxable income of assessee. We continue with our stand that learned assessing officer has added again same income which was already disclosed in his return of income treating it as undisclosed income and investment, basis which we request your goodself not to add bank deposits into income of assessee. 6.1 Ld. CIT(A) has decided this issue in para no.4&5 of its order. operative para is reproduced herein below for sake of reference: 4. I have carefully considered submissions made by appellant and impugned assessment order. appellant has submitted before AO that due to nature of business he had to accept cash deposits and it is not possible to provide any 3rd party confirmations for such cash deposits. He further submitted that he was part of transaction which was not situated in Mumbai, hence his commission was received by his counterpart in that city and deposited into his ICICI Bank account. 5. Before Appellate authority appellant submitted that sum total of Commission earned by him during year, both are forming part of gross receipts of Rs. 21,53,960/- in Profit & Loss account. Even though appellant claims that deposits are part of income shown, he could not explain satisfactorily before AO or CIT(A). In circumstances appeal is dismissed. 6.2 From co-joint reading of impugned order as well as arguments raised by assessee we observe that CIT(A) has rejected claim of assessee citing absence of documentary evidence as well as in absence of satisfactory explanation. ld. AR, however, drawn our attention to paper book filed which contains copy of pass book, bank statement and ledger account etc. Ld. AR has also relied upon copy of Gross Receipt Summary Partywise submitted by assessee which is at page no. 32 of paper book which were filed before authorities below. 5 ITA No. 3593/Mum/2014(A.Y. 2009-10) Shri. Vineet Sharma Vs . ITO 7. After considering arguments of both parties and submissions documents and evidences filed by assessee before authorities below as mentioned in para 6.2 of this order, we observe that CIT(A)/AO have not examined or considered documents filed by assessee. We, therefore, considering interest of justice, equity and fair play, are of considered view that orders of ld. CIT(A) are to be set aside and matter be restored back to file of AO to examine and verify documents filed by assessee and to adjudicate thereon after providing reasonable opportunity to assessee. Needless to mention here, views expressed by us could not be taken as expression on merits of present case. 8. In result, assessee s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in open court on 21st September , 2016 Sd/- Sd/- (Jason P. Boaz) (Sandeep Gosain) Accountant Member Judicial Member Mumbai; Dated :21.09.2016 Ps. Ashwini 6 ITA No. 3593/Mum/2014(A.Y. 2009-10) Shri. Vineet Sharma Vs . ITO Copy of Order forwarded to : 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT - concerned 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard File BY ORDER, (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Vineet Sharma v. Income-tax Officer, Ward No 24(1)(2), Mumbai
Report Error