Anzar Noormohammed Siddique, Vapi vs Department Of Income Tax

Income-Tax Officer, Vapi, Ward-1, Vapi Appellant

Vs.

Shri Anzar Noormohammed Siddique Plot No.1, Nr. Modern English School, Imran Nagar, Vapi Respondent

PAN: BEPPS3812A

अपीलाथ क ओर से /By Appellant : Shri M. K. Singh, Sr. D.R. ू यथ क ओर से/By Respondent : None सुनवाई क तार!ख/Date of Hearing : 25.02.2015 घोषणा क तार!ख/Date of Pronouncement :13.03.2015

ORDER

PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, J.M:

This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Valsad, dated 24.06.2011 for A.Y. 2008-09 on the following grounds:

ITA No. 2098/Ahd/11 A.Y. 08-09 [ITO vs. Shri Anzar Noormoham me d Siddique ] Page 2

"1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has deleted the addition made on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 69A of Rs.23,33,674/-.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has restricted the addition made on account of expenses upto 5% instead of 20%.

2. Assessee derives income from business of civil and interior contracts. First issue is with regards to addition of Rs.23,33,674/- on account of unexplained cash credit. In this regard Assessing Officer observed as under:

"Further, on verification of bank account statements, it is seen that assessee has deposited total of Rs.1,83,27,384/- in bank accounts during the year and total sales/receipts of Rs.l,47,10,543/-only disclosed in his books of accounts. No other source of deposits in bank has been shown. Thus, Rs.36,16,831/- is excess deposited in bank accounts. Therefore, A.R. of assessee asked to show cause as to why said excess deposits in bank accounts of Rs.36,16,831/- should not be treated as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the act and added to the total income . In response to same A.R. of the assessee explained that during the year the assessee has received of Rs. 12,83,157/- from sundry debtors for earlier years and same is deposited in banks accounts. For remaining deposits of Rs. Rs.23,33,674/- no explanation have been given. The reply of A.R. is considered carefully and found to be correct and accepted. Since, for the remaining deposits of Rs.23,33,674/- no explanation is offered, same is treated as unexplained cash credit and added to total income of the assessee u/s 69A of the I.T. Act. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(l)(c) are also initiated separately for concealment of income by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income."

ITA No. 2098/Ahd/11 A.Y. 08-09 [ITO vs. Shri Anzar Noormoham me d Siddique ] Page 3

2.1 Matter was carried before the First Appellate Authority, wherein various contentions were raised on behalf of assessee and having considered the same CIT(A) granted relief to the assessee.

2.2 Same has been opposed on behalf of Revenue inter alia submitted that CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition made on account of unexplained cash credit u/s. 69A of Rs.23,33,674/-. On other hand, nobody appeared on behalf of assessee despite of service, so matter is being decided on the argument of learned Departmental Representative and material on record.

2.3 After going through rival submission and material on record, we find that basis of addition is that Assessing Officer found total deposit in the bank was Rs. 1,83,27,384/- whereas the sales/receipts was of Rs. 1,47,10,543/-. Therefore, Assessing Officer thought the difference Rs. 36,16,831/-being unexplained cash credits required the assessee to explain. The stand of assessee has been that during the year it had received Rs. 12,83,157/- which includes amounts received from the debtors and deposited in the bank account. Assessing Officer was satisfied with the explanation offered for Rs. 12,83,157/-, which is not subject matter before us but he was not convinced for balance Rs.23,33,674/-. Therefore, added same as unexplained cash credit. Before CIT(A) Authorized Representative submitted the cash flow statement which ITA No. 2098/Ahd/11 A.Y. 08-09 [ITO vs. Shri Anzar Noormoham me d Siddique ] Page 4

revealed that difference as per books and bank statement is only Rs. 62,094/- (1,73,63,924 -1,73,01,830/-). Stand of assessee has been that Assessing Officer had wrongly adopted figure of deposit in bank at Rs.1,83,27,384/- instead of Rs. 1,73,63,924/-. Therefore, there was a gap in computation by Assessing Officer. CIT(A) found substance in the submission of the learned Authorized Representative. The assumption of Assessing Officer that the difference of debit and credit in the bank statement attracts provisions u/s. 68 was not justified. The requirement of the provision is to identify the credits and if the explanation offered by assessee is not found satisfactory, then the provision of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act is attracted. In this case, Assessing Officer had not reconciled the statement submitted by assessee but lifted the figure directly from the bank statement and applied the provisions of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. CIT(A) on alalysis found that difference of Rs.62,094/- which could be sundry entries in the books. In this background, CIT(A) was justified in deleting the impugned addition. Same is upheld.

4. Next issue is with regards to expenses. Assessing Officer made addition on account of various expenses amounting to Rs. 75,210/-. Assessing Officer during assessment proceeding found that these expenses were having personal element and in some cases self made vouchers were raised. Therefore, a lump sum 20% of expenditure disallowed. It was restricted to 5% by CIT(A). Under the facts and circumstances, we are not ITA No. 2098/Ahd/11 A.Y. 08-09 [ITO vs. Shri Anzar Noormoham me d Siddique ] Page 5

inclined to interfere in the finding of CIT(A) who has rightly restricted the disallowance to 5%. Same is upheld.

5. As a result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

Pronounced in the open Court on this the 13th day of March, 2015.

Sd/- Sd/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad: Dated 13/03/2015 True Copy S.K.SINHA

आदे श क ूितिल'प अमे'षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:-

1. राजःव / Revenue

2. आवेदक / Assessee

3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु0 / Concerned CIT

4. आयकर आयु0- अपील / CIT (A)

5. 'वभागीय ूितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad

6. गाड9 फाइल / Guard file.

By order/आदे श से,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद ।