Narendrasingh Lakhabhai Rana, ... vs Department Of Income Tax
- CitationITA No.1889/Ahd/2011
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The receipts shown as transportation charge income, which were recorded in the assessee's books of account, reflected in the profit and loss account, and subjected to tax deduction at source, are business receipts and cannot be treated as unexplained income under the head of unexplained cash credits. A Revenue appeal is not to be remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh enquiry where the Revenue has not raised any ground of infringement of Rule 46A, and where the Assessing Officer's own order records that the relevant details and the account of the payer were furnished by the assessee.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
सुनवाई क तार ख/ Date of Hea ring : 13 /02/201 5 घोषणा क तार ख /Date of P ronouncement: 20/02/2015
आदेश /O R D E R
PER MUKUL KUMAR SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER
This is an Appeal filed by the Revenue arising from the order of the learned CIT(A)-XV, Ahmedabad, dated 13.05.2011. The only grievance of the Revenue is that learned CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting an addition of Rs.68,68,179/- made on account of unexplained unsecured loan. Ground ins reproduced below:
"1. The learned CIT(A)-XV, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.68,68,179/- made by the Assessee Officer on account of unexplained unsecured loan."
2. Facts in brief as emerged from the corresponding assessment order passed u/s.143(3) dated 30th of September, 2010 were that the assessee in ITA No.1889/Ahd/2011 ITO Ward-9(4) Ahmedabad Vs. Narendra Singh L. Rana For A.Y. 2008-09 -2-
individual capacity is in transportation business. It was noted by the AO that the Assessee had shown cash receipts from Rajmoti Road Movers. As per AO, the Assessee had failed to offer any explanation in respect of cash receipts amounting to Rs.19,37,413/- and Rs.49,30,766/-; therefore, a total addition of Rs.68,68,179/- was made.
3. When the matter was carried before the First Appellate Authority, learned CIT(A) has deleted the addition as under:
"5 Ground No.3 is with respect to the addition of Rs.68,68,179. The addition has been made as per para 4 of the assessment order. Written submission received from the appellant is placed on record which includes copy of account of Rajmoti Road Movers. It is seen that the receipts from Rajmoti Road Movers to the extent of Rs.74,34,569/- have been included in the total receipts declared at Rs 95,19,164/- in the P&L account by the appellant. Out of these receipts of Rs.74,34,569/- from Rajmoti, actual payments of Rs. 69,45,159/- had been received by the appellant and remaining Rs. 4,89,410/- had been shown in the balance sheet under the head sundry debtors in the name of Rajmoti Road Movers. In this background cash receipts from Rajmoti cannot be treated as unexplained income of the assessee. The addition is directed to be deleted."
4. From the side of the Revenue, learned Sr.D.R. has vehemently objected that on one hand the Assessee has not furnished the necessary details during the assessment proceedings and on other hand learned CIT(A) has considered certain fresh evidences. His submission was that that matter should go back to learned CIT(A).
5. From the side of the respondent-assessee, learned A.R., Mr. J.M. Trivedi appeared and pleaded that he is ready to furnish an affidavit of the Legal Representative to establish that the requisite details and the accounts were duly furnished before the AO who has altogether ignored those evidences. Further, he has drawn our attention on a list of transportation charge income received from various parties. Learned A.R. ITA No.1889/Ahd/2011 ITO Ward-9(4) Ahmedabad Vs. Narendra Singh L. Rana For A.Y. 2008-09 -3-
has pointed that Rajmoti Road Mover was one of them. Therefore, the deposits which were made in the said account were nothing but receipts of business income. He has also informed that as per evidences on record on the said transaction TDS was detected.
6. Having considered the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the receipts were "business receipts" duly reflected in the books of account" under the head "transportation charge income". The impugned amounts were also subjected to TDS. We are not in agreement with the suggestion of learned Sr.D.R. to restore the matter back to AO firstly because of the reason that no ground for infringement of Rule 46A has been raised by the AO; secondly the AO on the first page of the order has noted that the details were furnished by the assessee alongwith the account of Rajmoti Road Movers. Therefore, we find no reason to disturb the findings of learned CIT(A), the same are hereby confirmed and this ground of the Revenue is dismissed.
6. In the result, the Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) (MUKUL Kr. SHRAWAT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 20/02/2015 Prabhat Kr. Kesarwani, Sr. P.S.
आदेश क त ल प अ े षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant 2. यथ / The Respondent. 3. संबं धत आयकर आयु त / Concerned CIT
4. आयकर आयु त(अपील) / The CIT(A)-III, Ahmedabad
5. वभागीय त न ध, आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad ITA No.1889/Ahd/2011 ITO Ward-9(4) Ahmedabad Vs. Narendra Singh L. Rana For A.Y. 2008-09 -4-
6. गाड फाईल / Guard file.
आदेशानुस ार / BY ORDER,
उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free