Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Lucknow
Imtiyaaz Foundation For Social Care, ... vs Income Tax Officer, Lucknow on 12 March, 2018
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
LUCKNOW BENCH"A", LUCKNOW
BEFORE SHRI. T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY,JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No.312 & 313/LKW/2016
Assessment Year:2009-10 & 2010-11
Imtiyaaz Foundation for Social Care v. Income Tax Officer
4/202, Vishal Khand Range 1(2)
Gomti Nagar, Lucknow Lucknow
TAN/PAN:AAATI1564R
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by: Shri Yogesh Agarwal, Advocate
Respondent by: Shri J.S. Minhas, CIT (DR)
Date of hearing: 06 03 2018
Date of pronouncement: 12 03 2018
ORDER
PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, J.M:
These appeals preferred by the assessee emanate from separate orders passed by the ld. CIT(A)-I, Lucknow dated 29/2/2016 on common grounds of appeal except the difference in amount.
2. These appeals were heard together and since the facts involved in these appeals are similar and the grounds are common, these appeals are being disposed by this consolidated order. However, we will take up the appeal in ITA No.312/LKW/2016 first and, as agreed by both the parties, our finding therein shall be applicable for ITA No.313/LKW/2016 also.
3. The facts as noted by the Assessing Officer in appeal No.312/LKW/2016 are that in the return of income, the society has claimed Rs.960/- as exempt income, but during the course of ITA No.312 & 313/LKW/2016Page 2 of 11 assessment proceedings, no supporting documentary evidences were furnished in this regard. Therefore, the claim of Rs. 960/- as exempt income was disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee.
4. Further, in the assessment proceedings, it was found that vouches regarding expenses were self-made and were not supported by outside bills. The payments were made in cash. Thus expenses claimed amounting to Rs.13,105/- are not open for verification for want of conclusive documentary evidences and therefore 50% of the expenses claimed i.e. Rs.6,553/- is being disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. During the relevant financial year 2009-10, the assessee society has shown an addition in capital fund amounting to Rs.13,00,000/- as per balance sheet submitted by the assessee. During the search proceedings, the counter foil of the bank deposits found that following cash deposits in the bank account with Axis Bank were found:-
Date of Deposits Amount
04.10.2008 Rs. 1,55,000/-
04.10.2008 Rs. 1,40,000/-
04.10.2008 Rs. 1,36,000/-
04.10.2008 Rs. 1,24,000/-
04.10.2008 Rs. 1,15,000/-
04.10.2008 Rs. 1,20,000/ -
04.10.2008 Rs. 1,10,000/-
07.10.2008 Rs. 1,23,000/-
07.10.2008 Rs. 1,20,000/-
ITA No.312 & 313/LKW/2016Page 3 of 11
07.10.2008 Rs. 1,22,000/-
07.10.2008 Rs. 1,17,000/-
07.10.2008 Rs.1,18,000/-
19.09.2008 Rs. 1,00,000/-
Total Rs. 16,00,000/-
5. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee trust was asked to furnish name and complete address of parties, their PAN, assessment details and bank details, confirmation from parties etc. and to produce them for statement. The assessee trust furnished only name and address of parties, but could not furnish their PAN, assessment details, bank details, confirmation from them and also could not produce them for statement, despite several opportunities allowed during the course of assessment proceedings. The letters were issued to the parties calling for information u/s 133(6) of the Act. The envelopes containing letter relating to following four parties were returned un- served:-
SI. No. Name of the Party Amount
1 Sri K.P. Singh Rs. 18,0007-
2 Sri Mehar Jalil Khan Rs. 17,000/-
3 Smt. Nirzala Khan Rs. 18,000/-
4 Sri Shakir Khan Rs. 18,000/-
Total Rs. 71,000/-
ITA No.312 & 313/LKW/2016Page 4 of 11
6. Therefore, the genuineness of aforesaid amount of Rs.71,000/- is not verifiable. Hence, the amount of Rs. 71,000/- is being added to the total income of the assessee as unexplained credits u/s 68 of the I.T. Act.
7. In the following cases, no reply has been received from the parties and the assessee could not furnish the details regarding PAN, assessment details, bank details and confirmation of parties and also could not produce the parties for statement despite several opportunities allowed during the course of assessment proceedings:-
SI. No. Name of the Party Amount
1 Sri Ahmad Jamal Khan, Rs. 18,000/-
2 Sri Daud Ahmad Rs. 15,000/-
3 Smt. Safia Rs. 15,000/-
4 Ajay Kumar Singh Rs. 18,000/-
Total Rs. 66,000/-
8. Thus, the genuineness of aforesaid amount of Rs.66,000/- was also not verifiable and, therefore, added the same to the total income of the assessee as unexplained credits u/s 68 of the I.T. Act.
9. In the following cases, replies of letters issued calling for information u/s 133(6) of the Act have been received. It was stated by the parties that they are not assessed to tax and have no PAN and have given donation/capital fund to the assessee trust. They could not furnish bank details and any other details regarding availability of funds having ITA No.312 & 313/LKW/2016Page 5 of 11 them to substantiate the genuineness of the money given. The assessee also could not furnish any supporting details in this regard. From a perusal of receipts books produced, it was found that just a day before the day of cash deposits, the receipts has been issued regarding collection of fund, though the parties are of different places. Thus, the receipts books also do not appear genuine and is after thought of the assessee trust:-
SI. Name Amount in Rs.
No.
1 Abdul Rasheed Khan 18,000
2 Abu Faisal 18,000
3 Abu Faisal 15,000
4 Abu Sufian Khan 17,000
5 Afreen 16,000
6 Ahmed Faisal Khan 18,000
7 Aisha Habib 18,000
8 Amjad Khan 18,000
9 Aqeel Ahmad Khan 15,000
10 Arshad 16,000
11 Arshad Khan 15,000
12 Arshiya Masood 18,000
13 Asad Khan 17,000
U Asjad Khan 17,000
ITA No.312 & 313/LKW/2016Page 6 of 11
15 Aslam Khan 17,000
16 Azra 18,000
17 Badar Jalil Khan 17,000
18 Bilqis Khanam 18,000
19 Bilqis Khanam 15,000
20 Farheen Ahmad 18,000
21 Habibur Rahman 21,000
22 Hena Alvi 17,000
23 HuLa 18,000
24 Jawed Irshad 17,000
25 Lubna Alvi 18,000
26 Marya 17,000
27 Masood Sardar 18,000
28 Matiuddin 17,000
29 Mehar Afroz 17,000
30 Mufideen Nisha 16,000
31 Nagma Nasim 17,000
32 Nasim 18,000
33 Nazeen 17,000
34 Nazia 18,000
35 Neyaz Ahmad 15,000,
36 Nizamuddin Khan 17,000
ITA No.312 & 313/LKW/2016Page 7 of 11
37 Nuzrat Khan 17,000
38 Qamar Jalil Khan 18,000
39 Rashid Umar 18,000
40 Razia Khan 17,000
41 Rizwana Begum 16,000
42 Sabia 18,000
43 Salma Khaton 18,000
44 Sana 17,000
45 Sarfraz Ahmad 18,000
46 Sarv/at Moin 17,000
47 Seema Khan 18,000
48 Shaheen 18,000
49 Shaheen Khan 16,000
50 Shahgufta 15,000
51 Shahid Irshad 17,000
52 Shahida 17,000
53 Shahnawaz 18,000
54 Shahnawaz Ahmad 16,000
55 Shakeel Ahmad Khan 18,000
56 Shamin Ahmad 15,000
57 Shariq Alvi 17,000
ITA No.312 & 313/LKW/2016Page 8 of 11
58 Shazia Qamar 18,000
59 Sheerin 18,000
60 Sheerin 16,000
61 Shoeb Khan 17,000
62 Sufia 16,000
63 Sufiyana Begum 15,000
64 Tabassum 17,000
65 Tabrez Ahmad 18,000
66 Talat Rahman 18,000
67 Tarannum Khan 15,000
68 Tariq Ahmad 17,000
69 Uzma Rashid 17,000
70 Zarin Khan 17,000
71 Zehra Habib 15,000
Total 11,89,000/-
10. Despite several opportunities allowed to the assessee trust to prove the creditworthiness of the above credits, the assessee could not produce PAN, assessment details and bank details of the parties and could not produce the above parties for statements. Only a written reply on plain paper in a general manner without any supporting documents regarding availability of funds, do not constitute the creditworthiness of the said credits. Therefore, the above credit totaling to Rs.11,89,000/-
ITA No.312 & 313/LKW/2016Page 9 of 11was added to the total income of the assessee as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the I.T. Act. The society is not registered u/s 12A of the I.T. Act, therefore, its income was assessed in the status of AOP and tax was charged at maximum on total income at maximum marginal rate.
11. Before the ld. CIT(A), assessee did not make any compliance of notices issued on different dates of hearing which are on record in the order of the ld. CIT(A). It was observed by the ld. CIT(A) that it is amply clear from the above chart that the assessee willfully has not made compliance of statutory notices issued for hearing for the reasons best known to him. The ld. CIT(A) observed that in view of the facts of the assessee's case, it is beyond doubt that the assessee is not bothered for the fate of the appeal. The assessee has filed the present appeal merely to file an appeal. Thus, it is obvious that the assessee is not interested in disposal of appeal, since assessee has nothing to say in regard to additions made by Assessing Officer. Therefore, all the additions made by Assessing Officer i.e. Rs. 960/- + 65S3/- + 71,000/-+ 66,000 + 11,89,000/- respectively were confirmed by the ld. CIT(A).
12. At the time of hearing before us, the ld. A.R. of the assessee pointed that in response to notices under section 133(6), only four parties have not answered, but that should not make the entire deposits as non-genuine. The ld. A.R. of the assessee further stated that in most of the cases, parties have agreed that they have given donation to the assessee-trust and, therefore, those donations should be acknowledged. The Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) have added the entire amount, which is not justified. Therefore, the order of the ld. CIT(A) may be set aside and the additions so made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) may be deleted.
ITA No.312 & 313/LKW/2016Page 10 of 1113. The ld. D.R., on the other hand, placed reliance upon the orders of the authorities below and argued that the assessee is not vigilant about his own litigation and, therefore, before the ld. CIT(A) despite several opportunities there was neither any compliance of the notices nor any explanation was furnished by the assessee as regards the additions made by the Assessing Officer.
14. We have perused the case records, heard the rival contentions and taking into account the facts in totality, we find that the matter should be restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer to verify in detail the factual position and genuineness in the present case and to decide the issue afresh after providing opportunity of hearing to the assessee. We, therefore, set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to decide the matter afresh after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
15. Following our aforesaid view taken in ITA No.312/LKW/2016, the appeal in ITA No.313/LKW/2016 is also restored to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide the matter afresh as per terms indicated therein.
16. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 12/03/2018.
Sd/- Sd/-
[T.S. KAPOOR] [PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY]
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
DATED:12th March, 2018
JJ:0703
ITA No.312 & 313/LKW/2016Page 11 of 11
Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT(A)
4. CIT
5. DR