The ACIT, Circle-14,, Ahmedabad v. Shri Nirav Arvindbhai Shah, Ahmedabad

ITA 2664/AHD/2011 | 2008-2009
Pronouncement Date: 24-04-2015 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 266420514 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN AZAPS6120L
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 2664/AHD/2011
Duration Of Justice 3 year(s) 6 month(s)
Appellant The ACIT, Circle-14,, Ahmedabad
Respondent Shri Nirav Arvindbhai Shah, Ahmedabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 24-04-2015
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 24-04-2015
Date Of Final Hearing 16-04-2015
Next Hearing Date 16-04-2015
Assessment Year 2008-2009
Appeal Filed On 24-10-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI SHAILEND RA KUMAR YADAV JUDI CIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . ITA. NO. 2 66 4 /AHD/20 11 (ASSESSM ENT YEAR: 200 8 - 0 9 ) A SSTT . C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX CIRCLE - 14 AHMEDABAD APPELLANT VS. SHRI NIRAV ARVINDBHAI SHAH A - 8 ADHOYANAGAR SOCIETY NR. SAHJIVAN SOCIETY SHANTINAGAR USMANPURA AHMEDABAD - 380013 RESPONDENT PAN: A Z A PS6120L / BY APPELLANT : SHRI ROOPCHAND SR. D.R. / BY RESPONDENT : SHRI S. N. DIVETIA A.R. / DATE OF HEARING : 1 6 . 0 4 .2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24 . 0 4 .201 5 ORDER P ER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV J.M: TH I S APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY REVENU E AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - X X I AHMEDABAD DATED 30. 08 . 20 11 FOR A.Y. 200 8 - 0 9 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: I T A NO. 2 66 4 /AHD/ 11 A.Y. 200 8 - 0 9 [ ACIT VS SHRI NIRAV ARVINDBHAI SHAH ] PAGE 2 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 10 20 000/ - & RS.1 4 5 000 / - MADE U/S 68 OF THE I.T. ACT ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITED IN S.B. ACCOUNT WITH ICICI BANK AHMEDABAD AND DELETING ADDITION OF RS.80500/ - ON A/C OF INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY . 2. THE LEA RNED CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO CONSIDER THE GROUNDS AND LEGAL POSITION AS DISCUSSED BY THE AO IN DETAIL VIDE PARA - 4 5 AND 6 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE I.T.ACT DATED 31.12.2010 BASED ON WHICH THE SAID ADDITIONS WERE MADE. 3. THE LEARNED CI T(A) IS ERRED IN LAW HOLDING THAT ENTRIES (UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT) IN THE BANK PASS BOOK WILL NOT SUBJECT TO ADDITION TO ADDITION U/S.68 OF I.T. ACT BEING PASS BOOK IS NOT BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 2. FIRST ADDITION RELATES TO ADDITION OF RS.10 20 00/ - MADE U/ S. 68 OF THE ACT. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED CASH OF RS.10 20 000/ - IN HIS ICICI BANK ACCOUNT. ASSESSEE GAVE CERTAIN EXPLANATIONS WITH REGARDS TO CASH DEPOSIT IN QUESTION BUT SAME WAS REJECTED AND ADDITION WAS MADE BY ASS ESSING OFFICER. 2 . 1 MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHEREIN VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS WERE RAISED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE AND HAVING CONSIDERED THE SAME CIT(A) HAS GRANTED RELIEF TO ASSESSEE. SAME HAS BEEN OPPOSED BEFORE US ON BEHALF O F REVENUE INTER ALIA SUBMITTED THAT CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETION ADDITION OF RS.10 20 000/ - MADE U/S. 68 OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY ORDER OF CIT(A) BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF ASSESSING I T A NO. 2 66 4 /AHD/ 11 A.Y. 200 8 - 0 9 [ ACIT VS SHRI NIRAV ARVINDBHAI SHAH ] PAGE 3 OFFICER BE RESTORED. ON OTHER HAND LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTA TIVE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 2 . 2 AFTER GOING THROUGH RIVAL SUBMISSION AND MATERIAL ON RECORD WE FIND THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE DISALLOWANCE AS IN HIS OPINION ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED DIFFERENT REASONS FOR THE HUGE CASH LIQUIDITY. BUT IN FAC T ASSESSEE HAS JUST TRIED TO JUSTIFY ITS CLAIM BY WAY OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCES. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE CONTENTIONS OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR MAKING ADDITION AND EXPLANATION OF ASSESSEE THERETO IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: SR. NO. AS PER AO AS PER APPEL LANT A THE APPELLANT FURNISHED DIFFERENT REASONS IN HIS REPLIES THE APPELLANT HAS JUST FURNISHED THE FACTS WHICH COULD BE CONSIDERED AS CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE QUA THE CASH DEPOSITS. MOREOVER THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE A PPELLANT HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY CONTRARY OR CONTROVERSIAL CONTENTION FOR DEPOSITION OF CASH IN ICICI BANK IN DIFFERENT REPLIES. B THE ASSESSEE IS A SALARIED EMPLOYEE AND UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO KEEP LIQUID CASH. THE LD. AO HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE APPELLANT WAS ACTIVELY ENGAGED IN SHARES INVESTMENT ACTIVITY AND TO INVEST ON THE RIGHT TIME HE OUGHT TO RETAIN LIQUID CASH ON HAND TO GIVE A MARGIN/DEPOSIT TO THE BROKERS. I T A NO. 2 66 4 /AHD/ 11 A.Y. 200 8 - 0 9 [ ACIT VS SHRI NIRAV ARVINDBHAI SHAH ] PAGE 4 C THE REASON THAT THE RUMORS OF INSOLVENCY OF ICICI BAN IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS. THE APPELLANT HAD EXPLAINED THAT ON COMING TO KNOW ABOUT THE WEAK FINANCIAL POSITION OF ICICI BANK AND REALIZING THAT THE MONEY LYING IN THE SAID BANK WAS NOT SAFE THE APPELLANT HAD WITHDRAWN THE MONEY LIKE MANY OTHER DEPOSITORS ALL OVER INDIA . THE AO POINTE D OUT THAT THIS EXPLANATION WAS BASELESS. HOWEVER THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THIS REASON WAS NOT BASELESS BECAUSE A STRONG RUMOR HAD CIRCULATED THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY THAT ICICI BANK HAS GONE INTO DEEP TROUBLE. THE VERY FACT THAT SHRI K. V. KAMATH MD & CEO OF THE BANK HAD TO GIVE A PRESS RELEASE ON 30.09.2008 STATING THAT IT WAS A MALICIOUS RUMORS AND BANKS POSITION WAS SOUND THAT ITSELF SHOWS THAT THE DEPOSITORS HAD BECOME PANIC AND NO PERSON OF ORDINARY PRUDENCE WOULD KEEP MONEY IN A BANK WHERE THERE IS EVEN A RUMOR ABOUT THE WEAK FINANCIAL POSITION. THE COPY OF PRESS RELEASE IS ENCLOSED. THUS FROM THE ABOVE DOCUMENTS IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE REASON FURNISHED FOR CASH WITHDRAWAL IS NOT I T A NO. 2 66 4 /AHD/ 11 A.Y. 200 8 - 0 9 [ ACIT VS SHRI NIRAV ARVINDBHAI SHAH ] PAGE 5 BASELESS. D THE TABLE SHOWS THAT THE CASH WITHDRAWN IS LESS WHEREA S THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED IS MORE. THE LD. AO HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE APPELLANT WAS HAVING A GOOD AMOUNT OF CASH ON HAND AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR. E THE REPLY THAT THE CASH WAS WITHDRAWN EARLY AND THEN DEPOSITED IN BANK IS NOT JUSTIFIED REASON. THE CHART SHOWING CASH WITHDRAWAL AND DEPOSIT ITSELF SHOWS THAT THE APPELLANT HAS DEPOSITED THE AMOUNT OUT OF PREVIOUS WITHDRAWALS. F THERE IS NO VALID REASON FOR KEEPING IDLE MONEY. IT COULD HAVE BEEN EASILY & SAFELY KEPT IN BANK OR INVESTED IN ANY OTH ER ASSET WHICH WILL EARN SOME MONEY OR APPRECIATION IN VALUE. THE APPELLANT HAS ALREADY FURNISHED THE REASON WHY HE HAD KEPT THE MONEY WITH HIM. DUE TO THE RUMORS OF UNSOUND FINANCIAL POSITION OF ICICI BANK THE APPELLANT HAD WITHDRAWN THE MONEY LYING WIT H IT. SECONDLY IT IS ALWAYS DEPENDS UPON THE APPELLANT WHAT TO DO WITH HIS OWN MONEY WHERE TO INVEST OR WHETHER TO INVEST OR NOT LOOKING TO THE MARKET POSITION. G THE AMOUNTS WERE WITHDRAWN ONLY WHEN REQUIRED. EVERY PERSON WITHDRAWS FROM HIS BANK ACCOU NT WHEN HE REQUIRES THE MONEY. IT IS A GENERAL PRINCIPAL AND IT IS NOT UNDERSTANDABLE THAT HOW THE AO HAS FOUND IT CONTRARY. IN VIEW OF ABOVE FACTUAL CIRCUMSTANCES CIT(A) JUSTIFIED IN DELETING ADDITION IN QUESTION BECAUSE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED RS.10.2 0 LACS IN HIS ICICI BANK ACCOUNT ON VARIOUS DATES AND I T A NO. 2 66 4 /AHD/ 11 A.Y. 200 8 - 0 9 [ ACIT VS SHRI NIRAV ARVINDBHAI SHAH ] PAGE 6 EXPLAINED THE SOURCES OF SAME IN DETAIL AS DISCUSSED ABOVE . ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE EXPLANATION OF ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT DIFFERENT REPLIES WERE GIVEN FOR CASH DEPOSITED. IN FACT SUBSTANCE HAS TO BE APPRECIATED BEFORE REACHING ANY CONCLUSION. THE RUMOR ABOUT FINANCIAL WEAKNESS OF ICICI WAS MATTER OF FACT AT RELEVANT POINT OF TIME. IN VIEW OF ABOVE CIT(A) BELIEVED THE CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE THAT IN VIEW OF RUMOR ABOUT INSOLVENCY OF ICICI BANK ASSESSEE HAS WITHDRAWN HUGE CASH AMOUNT . AS AND W HEN HE FOUND IT COMFORTABLE HE DEPOSITED THE SAME IN THE BANK AS EXPLAINED ABOVE. ACCORDINGLY CIT(A) JUSTIFIED IN DELET ING ADDITION IN QUESTION. SAME IS UPHELD. 3 . NEXT ISSUE IS WITH REGARDS TO A DDITION OF RS.1 45 000/ - AS UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT IN ICICI BANK ACCOUNT. DURING COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED RS.1 45 000/ - IN HIS ICICI BANK ACCOUNT ON VARIOUS DATES. ASSESSEE FILED A DETAILE D EXPLANATION ALONG WITH WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 29.08.2011 WHICH IS REPRODUCED IN PARA 4 OF CIT(A)S ORDER AND HAVING CONSIDERED THE SAME CIT(A) GRANTED RELIEF TO ASSESSEE. SAME HAS BEEN OPPOSED BEFORE US ON BEHALF OF REVENUE. ON OTHER HAND LEARNED A UTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 3 . 1 AFTER GOING THROUGH RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND MATERIAL ON RECORD WE FIND THAT ON PERUSAL OF WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF ASSESSEE CIT(A) FOUND THAT AMOUNT OF RS. 60 000/ - I T A NO. 2 66 4 /AHD/ 11 A.Y. 200 8 - 0 9 [ ACIT VS SHRI NIRAV ARVINDBHAI SHAH ] PAGE 7 RS.60 000/ - AND RS.25 000/ - TOTA LING TO RS.1 45 000/ - WAS RECEIVED THROUGH PROPER BANKING CHANNEL. HE ALSO FOUND THAT THESE AMOUNTS WERE NOTHING BUT A REPAYMENT OF EARLIER ADVANCE MADE TO ONE SHRI KETAN SHAH. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN OBSERVING THAT NO ADDITION WO ULD BE MADE U/S.68 OF THE ACT WHEN PAYMENTS WERE BEING RECEIVED THROUGH BANK OR BANKING CHANNEL LIKE BANK TRANSFER OR INTERNET BANKING ETC. HE WAS RIGHT IN DELETING ADDITION IN QUESTION. SAME IS UPHELD. 4 . NEXT ISSUE RELATES TO ADDITION OF RS.84 000/ - UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. DURING COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE WAS HAVING TWO HOUSE PROPERTIES TO WHICH HE CLAIMED AS EXEMPT HOUSE PROPERTIES AND WERE ESTIMATED THE A L V OF BOTH HOUSES @ RS.84 000/ - AFTER MAKING DEDUCTION U/S.24. AGAINST THE ADDITION MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHEREIN VARIOUS CONTENTIONS WERE RAISED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE AND HAVING CONSIDERED THE SAME CIT(A) HAS GRANTED RELIEF TO ASSESSEE. SAME HAS BEEN OPPOSED BEFORE US ON BEHALF OF REVENUE. ON OTHER HAND LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 4 . 1 AFTER GOING THROUGH RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND MATERIAL ON RECORD WE FIND THAT ON PERUSAL OF SALE DEED S FILED IN SUPPORT OF C LAIM CIT(A) AGREED WITH THE CONTENTION RAISED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE AND ULTIMATELY HE ESTIMATED ALV OF ONLY ONE HOUSE PROPERTY SITUATED AT AYODHYANAGAR APARTMENT @ RS.3 500/ - I T A NO. 2 66 4 /AHD/ 11 A.Y. 200 8 - 0 9 [ ACIT VS SHRI NIRAV ARVINDBHAI SHAH ] PAGE 8 (RS.5 000 LESS RS.1 500/ - DEDUCTION U/S.24). IN THIS BACKGROUND CIT(A) WAS JU STIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.3 500/ - AS AGAINST RS.84 000/ - MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER. THIS REASONED FINDING OF CIT(A) NEEDS NO INTERFERENCE FROM OUR SIDE. WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 5 . IN THE RESULT APPEAL FILED BY REVENU E IS DISMI SSED . PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 24 TH DAY OF APRIL 201 5 . SD/ - SD/ - (ANIL CHATURVEDI) (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 24 /0 4 /2015 S.K.SINHA / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. / REVENUE 2. / ASSESSEE 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. - / CIT (A) 5. / DR ITAT AHMEDABAD 6. / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / /