Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad
T.V. Krishnamurthy, Ahmedabad vs Assessee on 6 May, 2013
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,
अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद Ûयायपीठ ''B'', अहमदाबाद ।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD,
"B" BENCH
सव[ौी ौी जी.
जी.सी.
सी.गुƯा,
ा माननीय उपाÚय¢,
उपाÚय¢, एवं तेज राम मीणा,
मीणा, लेखा सदःय के
सम¢ ।
BEFORE S/SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT AND
TEJ RAM MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)
ITA No.137/Ahd/2013
[Asstt.Year : 2009-2010]
Shri T.V. Krishnamurthy बनाम/Vs. DCIT, Cir.13
C/o Mulchandani & Co Ahmedabad.
309, Akash Avenue
Nr.Ashwamegh Complex
Mithakhali, Ahmedabad.
PAN : ABTPT 7611 E.
(अपीलाथȸ / Appellant) (ू×यथȸ / Respondent)
िनधा[ǐरती कȧ ओर से/
Assessee by : Shri P.F. Jain
राजःव कȧ ओर से/
Revenue by : Shri Y.P. Verma
सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख/
Date of Hearing : 6th May, 2013.
घोषणा कȧ तारȣख/
Date of Pronouncement : 11/06/2013
आदे श / O R D E R
PER G.C. GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT: This appeal by the
assessee for the assessment year 2009-2010 is directed against the
order of the CIT(A)-XXI, Ahmedabad dated 5.11.2012.
ITA No.137/Ahd/2013
2. The grounds of the appeal of the assessee are as under:
"1. The ld.CIT(A) has erred both in law and in fact in
upholding addition of Rs.14,00,000/- on account of cash
deposits in account with Corporation Bank, Satellite,
Ahmedabad without properly considering and appreciating the
facts and explanation of the appellant.
2. He has also erred in law and on facts in not holding that
the onus for proving cash deposit has been discharged by the
assessee.
3. He has erred in law and on facts in not considering the
facts that additions has been made on the ground of cash credit
where as there was no cash credits in as much as that the
advance given earlier has been received back.
4. Without prejudice to the above grounds of appeal, he has
erred in law and on facts in not considering the settled legal
position that even if the explanation of the assessee is not found
satisfactory it will not automatically result in deeming the said
amount as income of the assessee because the word used in the
section is may and not shall and the surrounding circumstances
ought to have been considered."
3. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that addition of
Rs.14 lakhs on account of cash deposits has been wrongly added by
the AO and wrongly confirmed by the CIT(A) since the assessee has
received back its own amount advanced to Shri T. Ramakrishna and
Shri Bhaskar Rao, and is not a case of cash credit attracting the
provision of section 68 of the Act. He admitted that the assessee
could not file any corroborative evidence in the form of
confirmation/affidavit, but submitted that since it is a case of
advanced money returned by other party, no adverse view should have
been taken. He relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High
Court in the case of Mitesh Rolling Mills P. Ltd. Vs. CIT, 258 ITR
-2
ITA No.137/Ahd/2013
278 (Guj). He submitted that legal ground as mentioned in ground
no.3 and 4 before the Tribunal were not considered by the CIT(A).
4. The learned DR has opposed the submissions of the learned
counsel for the assessee. He submitted that since the amount of Rs.7
lakhs on 2.9.2008 and another amount of Rs.7 lakhs on 3.10.2008
were credited in cash in the account books of the assessee, this is a
clear case of the cash credit, and onus was on the assessee to establish
source thereof, and that how the cash was received by him from
Chennai. He submitted that the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High
Court in 258 ITR 278 cited by the learned counsel of the assessee was
distinguishable on facts.
4. We have considered rival submissions and have perused the
orders of the AO and the CIT(A) and the ledger account of Shri
T.Ramakrishnana and Shri S. Bhaskar Rao, as filed in the compilation
by the assessee. We find that the character of the deposit amount of
Rs.7 lakhs each, making a total of Rs.14 lakhs, received as cash by the
assessee is clearly that of cash credit, and therefore the provision of
section 68 are applicable to the facts of the case of the assessee, and
onus to prove the same is clearly on the assessee to establish the
genuineness of the credit entries. In this case, the assessee has failed
to file any corroborative evidence or even a confirmation letter from
Chennai party. The assessee could not show how the cash amount
was transferred from Chennai to Gandhinagar, Gujarat to the assessee.
Merely because the assessee has advanced some money to Chennai
party prior to the return of the same by the Chennai party, it could not
be said that the character of the credit entries made in cash book by
the assessee is not that of "cash credits". The learned counsel for the
assessee has fairly admitted that no documentary evidence in support
-3
ITA No.137/Ahd/2013
of the amount credited by the assessee could be filed by the assessee.
We find that the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in 258
ITR 278 is distinguishable on facts. The alternative plea of the
learned counsel of the assessee that the ground nos.3 and 4 of the
appeal before the Tribunal were not adjudicated by the learned
CIT(A), is without any merit, as we have already held that this is a
clear case of cash credit and onus was on the assessee to prove that the
credit entries were genuine. In these facts of the case, we have no
hesitation in holding that the assessee could not discharge onus which
lies on it, as per the provision of section 68, and accordingly, the order
of the CIT(A) on this issue is confirmed and the grounds of the appeal
of the assessee are dismissed.
5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in Open Court on the date mentioned
hereinabove.
Sd/- Sd/-
तेज राम मीणा / TEJ RAM MEENA)
(ते जी..सी
जी
(जी सी..गुƯाा/G.C. GUPTA)
लेखा सदःय /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER उपाÚय¢ /VICE-PRESIDENT
Copy of the order forwarded to:
1) : Appellant
2) : Respondent
3) : CIT(A)
4) : CIT concerned
5) : DR, ITAT.
BY ORDER
DR/AR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD
-4