Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune
Dalgade Vijaykumar Mahadeoappa,, ... vs Department Of Income Tax on 5 March, 2013
ITA No.1358/PN/2011 Dalgade Vijaykumar Mahadeoapa, Latur
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
PUNE BENCH "B ", PUNE
BEFORE: SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND
SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No. 1358/PN/2011
Assessment Year : 2005-06
ITO, Ward-3(4) Dalgade Vijaykumar Mahadeoappa,
Latur Vs. Latur
(Appellant) (Respondent)
PAN No. AJSPD3608E
Appellant By: N O N E
Respondent By: Shri Rajiv Haritt
Date of hearing : 05.03.2013
Date of pronouncement : 07.03.2013
ORDER
PER R.S. PADVEKAR, J.M.:
This appeal is filed by the revenue challenging the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A), Aurangabad dt. 26-08-2011 for the A.Y. 2005-06. The revenue has taken the following grounds:
"On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in
1. Deleting the addition of Rs. 14,61,995/- made on account of income from other sources.
2. Not considering the factual facts narrated in the remand report submitted by the Assessing Officer."
2. The facts revealed from the record are as under:
On the basis of the information received from Annual Information Return (AIR) furnished u/s 285BA of the Income-Tax Act, the assessee was issued notice u/s 142 (1) of the Act calling for the return of income for the A.Y. 2005-06 as noted by the A.O. It was noticed that the assessee has made deposits in cash in a saving bank account aggregating to Rs.14,61,995/-. It appears that the assessee did not file return of income. The Assessing Officer therefore completed the assessment determining the total income of Rs. 14,61,995/- in the hands of the assessee.
3. The assessee challenged the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer before the Ld. CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has stated that he is in the business of Truck plying and Agriculture. He further stated that there was no opportunity to the assessee to attend before the Assessing Officer due to the short notice as the notice was served on the assessee on the date on which he was required to attend before the Assessing Officer i.e. 19-12-2007. The assessee filed the 2 ITA No.1358/PN/2011 Dalgade Vijaykumar Mahadeoapa, Latur details explaining the source from which amount was deposited in the Bank Account on the basis of the details filed by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) asked the Assessing Officer to send the remand report. The Assessing Officer sent the remand report. In the remand report, the Assessing Officer pointed out that to verify the claim of the assessee that assessee has sold trucks to different persons, summons were issued but due to incomplete address, summons were not served. The Assessing Officer further stated in the remand report that he sent the Inspector for spot verification. He could verify only one Truck owner Sh. Abdul Samadbhai but other Truck owners were non-traceable. The Assessing Officer also stated that he made enquiry at the RTO Office, Osmanabad and Gulbarga and they have informed transfer of some of the trucks in the name of the person other than the purchaser of the trucks.
3.1 In sum and substance, the Assessing Officer expressed his reservation in respect of the details of source given by the assessee. The Assessee filed the documents in the form of register extract issued by the Regional Transport office and Form no. 41 issued by the Assistant Regional Transport Office in respect of 3 trucks i.e. KA-32/5231, KA- 32/3332, KA-32/1172. The Ld. CIT(A) accepted the explanation in respect of the source towards deposit of the cash amount to Rs. 14,61,995/- in saving bank account with SBI. The Ld. CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs.14,61,995/- and assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.70,000/- as submitted by him or worked out income of truck plying u/s 44AE of the Act. The operative part of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is as under:
"I have carefully considered the facts of the case and rival contentions. On perusal of the same it is noticed that the appellant is an agriculturist and also carrying on truck plying business. The father of the appellant is also an agriculturist and has owned trucks. The family of the appellant and his father is a joint family staying together. During the year the appellant and his father have deposited cash amounting to Rs.44,61,995/- in saving bank account with SBI. The source of the same has been explained out of sale of 7 trucks owned by the appellant himself and his father, which is supported by the sale receipts, affidavits of the truck owners, RTO record and transfer forms issued for sale of trucks. Further the agricultural income claimed approximately at Rs.4,00,000/- is also supported by 7/12 extracts of agricultural land admeasuring 40 acres. The approximate agricultural income claimed at Rs.10,000/- per acre does not appear to be excessive. The amount of sale proceeds of trucks is Rs.13,86,000/- and agricultural income is Rs.4,00,000/- which is sufficient for cash deposits of Rs.14,61,995/- in saving bank account of the appellant. After considering the submission of the appellant, remand report of the A.O. and the totality of the facts, I am of the considered view that the appellant has reasonably explained the source of cash deposited of Rs.14,61,995/- in savings bank account on the basis of available evidence to support the source of deposit. The A.O. is therefore directed to delete the 3 ITA No.1358/PN/2011 Dalgade Vijaykumar Mahadeoapa, Latur addition/income assessed at Rs.14,61,995/- and assess the income of the appellant at Rs.70,000/- as submitted by the appellant or higher amount towards income from truck plying after verifying the number of trucks, plied by the appellant during the year and considering provisions of section 44AE of the Act applicable for truck pliers to arrive at their income on presumptive basis.
Now the revenue is in appeal before us.
4. We have heard the Ld. DR. None was present for the assessee. We find that on the basis of Annual Information Return, assessment of the assessee was framed as per the facts on record. It is seen that only one date was given to the assessee and reasons best known to the Assessing Officer, the assessment was completed in undue haste. It is further seen that before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the details in respect of the source for depositing the amount in his bank account. The main source was sale consideration received from the sale of his trucks. It is seen that the assessee has filed documentary evidence in the form of register extracts from the RTO Office to show that he has transferred the trucks. The Assessing Officer was given an opportunity by the Ld. CIT(A) by calling a remand report but the Assessing Officer only stated that he is unable to verify transfer of the trucks. In our opinion, the assessee has explained the source and the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in directing the Assessing Officer to delete the addition and worked out the income of the assessee at Rs.70,000/- or u/s 44AE of the Act whichever is higher. We find no reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, same is confirmed.
5. In the result, the revenue's appeal is dismissed.
Pronounced in the open Court 07.03.2013
Sd/- Sd/-
(G.S. PANNU) (R.S. PADVEKAR)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
RK/PS
Pune,
Dated 7th March, 2013
Copy to
1 The Department
2 The Assessee
3 The CIT(A), Aurangabad
4 The CIT, Aurangabad
5 The DR, 'B' Bench, Pune.
6 Guard file.
// True Copy // By Order
Private Secretary
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pune