Govind Gopal Goyal v. ITO - Taxpublishers.in

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2024 TaxPub(DT) 1182 (Srt-Trib) IN THE ITAT, SURAT BENCH PAWAN SINGH, J.M. & A.L. SAINI, A.M. Govind Gopal Goyal v. ITO ITA No. 753/SRT/2023 27 February, 2024 Assessee by: Ramesh Kumar Malpani, C.A. Respondent by: Vinod Kumar, Sr-D.R. ORDER *A.L. Saini, A.M.* Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to assessment year 2017-18, is directed against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (NFAC/Ld. CIT (A) for short) dated 20-9-2023, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the assessing officer under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the IT Act), dated 11-10-2019. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by assessee are as follows: (1) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law, the appeal order passed by learned Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the appeal of the appellant is wrong, unjustified, invalid and bad in law. (2) That on the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in sustaining the additions of Rs. 83,39,350 made by the assessing officer under section 69A & 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the IT Act) by wrongly assuming the whole of the turnover of appellant deposited in the bank accounts in the form of cash (Rs. 70,95,115) and cheques (Rs. 12,44,235) as unexplained money/investments under section 69A/69 of the Act, whereas the amounts so deposited were sale proceeds of business of appellant and has been so accepted in past years. The additions so made by learned assessing officer and sustained by learned Commissioner (Appeals) are wrong and unjustified. Appellant prays for deleting the same. (3) Without prejudice to above grounds of appeal, that the learned assessing officer as well as Commissioner (Appeals) have apparently erred in not considering the plea of appellant that in case if above deposits in bank accounts are not accepted as turnover of appellant, then the withdrawals made from these bank accounts and the income assessed in past years must be considered as sources for the amounts so deposited in these bank accounts. (4) That on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 2,99,988 on account of interest on bank F.D. given as security to the customs department, whereas the said interest has neither been received nor is receivable by appellant as the FD and the interest thereon are held as security for payment of demand of custom duty. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2024 TaxPub(DT) 1182 (Srt-Trib)

IN THE ITAT, SURAT BENCH

PAWAN SINGH, J.M. & A.L. SAINI, A.M.

Govind Gopal Goyal v. ITO

ITA No. 753/SRT/2023

27 February, 2024

Assessee by: Ramesh Kumar Malpani, C.A.

Respondent by: Vinod Kumar, Sr-D.R.

ORDER

A.L. Saini, A.M.

Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to assessment year 2017-18, is directed against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (NFAC/Ld. CIT (A) for short) dated 20-9-2023, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the assessing officer under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the IT Act), dated 11-10-2019.

2. The grounds of appeal raised by assessee are as follows:

(1) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law, the appeal order passed by learned Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the appeal of the appellant is wrong, unjustified, invalid and bad in law.

(2) That on the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in sustaining the additions of Rs. 83,39,350 made by the assessing officer under section 69A & 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the IT Act) by wrongly assuming the whole of the turnover of appellant deposited in the bank accounts in the form of cash (Rs. 70,95,115) and cheques (Rs. 12,44,235) as unexplained money/investments under section 69A/69 of the Act, whereas the amounts so deposited were sale proceeds of business of appellant and has been so accepted in past years. The additions so made by learned assessing officer and sustained by learned Commissioner (Appeals) are wrong and unjustified. Appellant prays for deleting the same.

(3) Without prejudice to above grounds of appeal, that the learned assessing officer as well as Commissioner (Appeals) have apparently erred in not considering the plea of appellant that in case if above deposits in bank accounts are not accepted as turnover of appellant, then the withdrawals made from these bank accounts and the income assessed in past years must be considered as sources for the amounts so deposited in these bank accounts.

(4) That on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 2,99,988 on account of interest on bank F.D. given as security to the customs department, whereas the said interest has neither been received nor is receivable by appellant as the FD and the interest thereon are held as security for payment of demand of custom duty.