Kavita Jivan Kalle, Mumbai vs Assessee

आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, मंब ु ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES 'A' MUMBAI सव ी आय.पी. बंसल, या यक सद य एवं बी.आर. बा करन , लेखा सद य के सम । BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND

SHRI B.R.BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 2205/MUM/2013 नधा रण वष /Assessment Year 2009-10

Ms. Kavita Jivan Kalle, बनाम/ Income Tax Officer, 7,Munsh Colony, Ward 11(2)(4), Vs. Mahakali Caves Road, Mumbai. Andheri (East), Mumbai 400 093 थायी ले खा सं . /जीआइआर सं . /PAN/GIR No. : AGTPK 2828D

(अपीलाथ /Appellant) .. ( यथ / Respondent)

Appellant by Shri Rishabh Shah Respondent by : Shri Sanjiv Pungliya सनु वाई क# तार%ख / Date of Hearing : 18/06/2015 घोषणा क# तार%ख /Date of Pronouncement : 18/06/2015 आदे श / O R D E R

PER I.P.BANSAL, JM:

This is an appeal filed by the assessee and it is directed against order passed by Ld. CIT(A)-3, Mumbai dated 7/2/2013 for assessment year 2009-10. Grounds of appeal read as under:

"1) On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in Law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Learned Assessing Officer in treating the Unsecured Loan of Rs.4,63,600/- as alleged Unexplained Cash Credit u/s.68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without considering the facts and circumstances of the case."

2 आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 2205/MUM/2013 नधा रण वष /Assessment Year 2009-10

2. Credit balance outstanding in the balance sheet of the assessee aggregating to a sum of Rs.4,63,600/- has been added to the income of the assessee under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(the Act) on account of non-filing of confirmation and on account of unproved credit worthiness of the creditor. The details is as follows:

Sr. No. Name of the party Amount (Rs.) 1. Anand More 18,000 2. Chandrashekhar G. Rane 15,000 3. Durgeshg Kaur 17,000 4. Geeta Mistra 13,000 5. Dayanand Shetty 18,000 6. Kalpana Gala 18,000 7. Kirit Gala 18,000 8. Maninderkaur Khaloroda 18,000 9. Navinchandra Khimji 17,000 Stores 10. Nisha S. Bhatt 12,000 11. Nityanand Vaishnav 25,600 12. Rajnikant Mehta 19,000 13. Ranjitkumar Khaloroda 16,000 14. Ravindra Saranl 18,000 15. Sanjeev Kalle 1,00,000 16. Sheela S. Gala 15,000 17. Shivendra Shrivastav 15,000 18. Sonawala Enterprises 18,000 19. Sunil Bhatt 18,000 20. Suresh K. Gala 15,000 21. Tara J. Mehta 15,000 22. Sameer Traders 25,000 Total 4,63,600

2.1 The aforementioned addition is contested by the assessee on the ground that except a sum of Rs.5600/-, all the above credits are opening balances. Only a sum of Rs.5600/- in the name of Nityanand Vaishnav was credited during the year, whereas the said person was having opening balance of Rs.20,000/-. The details regarding opening balance of the creditors is also filed at page 10 of the paper book and it was also filed before AO vide letter dated 4/7/2011, copy of which is filed at page 9 of the paper book. It was the main argument of Ld. AR that opening balance could not be added under 3 आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 2205/MUM/2013 नधा रण वष /Assessment Year 2009-10

section 68 of the Act and the addition, if any, could be made in the year when they were credited to the bank accounts. It is also the case of the assessee that all the confirmations were filed which have been ignored by the AO as well as Ld. CIT(A). Thus, it was claimed that the addition has wrongly been sustained by Ld.CIT(A) and should be set aside and deleted.

3. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied upon the order passed by AO and Ld. CIT(A).

4. We have heard both the parties and their contentions have carefully been considered. According to the details filed by the assessee, during the course of assessment proceedings, out of total amount of Rs.4,63,600/- a sum of Rs.4,58,000/- was opening balance and this fact is also recorded in the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) in para 1.2. Therefore, keeping in view this fact, we are of the opinion that addition has wrongly been sustained by Ld. CIT(A) as the credit to this extent is not during the year under consideration. Therefore, the said amount cannot be added under section 68 of the IT Act. The remaining amount of Rs.5600/- is a paltry sum and without bringing any contrary material on record we do not consider that this small amount may be considered to be unexplained income of the assessee, therefore, we delete the entire addition and allow the appeal filed by the assessee.

5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 18/06/2015 आदे श क# घोषणा खुले यायालय म+ ,दनांकः 18/06/2015 को क# गई ।

Sd/- Sd/- (बी.आर. बा करन/B.R.BASKARAN) आय.पी.बंसल/I.P.BANSAL) लेखा सद य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER या यक सद य / JUDICIAL MEMBER मुंबई Mumbai; ,दनांक Dated 18/06/2015 4 आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 2205/MUM/2013 नधा रण वष /Assessment Year 2009-10

आदे श त ल प अ े षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :

1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant

2. यथ / The Respondent.

3. आयकर आयु/त(अपील) / The CIT(A)-

4. आयकर आयु/त / CIT

5. 0वभागीय त न2ध, आयकर अपील%य अ2धकरण, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai

6. गाड फाईल / Guard file.

आदे शानस ु ार/ BY ORDER, स या0पत त //True Copy// उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, मुंबई / ITAT, Mumbai व. न.स./Vm, Sr. PS