Shri Mahendrabhai Ishwarbhai Shah, Ahmedabad v. The Income tax Officer,Ward-12(3),, Ahmedabad

ITA 2744/AHD/2010 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2013 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 274420514 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN ALRPS0554P
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 2744/AHD/2010
Duration Of Justice 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 6 day(s)
Appellant Shri Mahendrabhai Ishwarbhai Shah, Ahmedabad
Respondent The Income tax Officer,Ward-12(3),, Ahmedabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 31-10-2013
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted C
Tribunal Order Date 31-10-2013
Date Of Final Hearing 16-09-2013
Next Hearing Date 16-09-2013
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 24-09-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD C BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R. MEENA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 2744/AHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 MAHENDRABHAI ISHWARBHAI SHAH C-2 ARAVALI APTS BANK OF BARODAS GALLI MANINAGAR AHMEDABAD - 8 V/S . ITO WARD 12(3) AHMEDABAD. PAN NO. A LRPS0554P (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) BY APPELLANT SHRI S. N. DIVETIA A.R. /BY RESPONDENT SHRI J. P. JHANGID SR. D.R. /DATE OF HEARING 16 .0 9 .201 3 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 31.10.2013 O R D E R PER : SHRI T.R.MEENA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL AT THE BEHEST OF ASSESSEE WHICH H AS EMANATED FROM THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-XX AHMEDABAD DATED 17.05.2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THE EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UN DER: 1.1 THE ORDER PASSED U/S.250 ON 17.5.2010 FOR A.Y. 2006-07 BY CIT(A)-XX ABAD PARTLY CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS IS WHOLLY ILLEGAL UNLAWFUL AND AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NAT URAL JUSTICE. ITA NO. 2744/AHD/2010 A.Y. 06-07 PAGE 2 1.2 THE LD CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN NOT CONSI DERING FULLY AND PROPERLY THE SUBMISSIONS MADE AND EVIDENCE PROD UCED BEFORE HIM. 2.1 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND OR ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS 1. RENT OF BENDING MACHINE : RS.84 000 2. CASH DEPOSITED IN BANK : RS.1 00 00 2. 1/5 TH OUT OF TELEPHONE ETC. : 2.2 THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE CONFIRMED THE ABOVE ADDITIONS. 2. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE APPEAL BELATED BY 59 DAYS . THE ASSESSEE FILED AFFIDAVIT ALONGWITH MEDICAL CERTIFICATE AND CLAIMED THAT HE WAS ILL. THEREFORE HE COULD NOT FILE THE APPEAL IN TIME. ACCORDINGLY WE CONDONE THE DELAY OF FILING OF APPEAL. 3. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF JOB W ORK CONTRACT FROM VARIOUS COMPANIES. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED BEFORE THE A.O. ABOUT DEPOSIT OF RS.7 000/- EACH ON 07.03.2008 AND 06.02.2008. HE H AD GIVEN HIS BENDING MACHINE ON RENT TO M/S. JAY FABRICATOR PALEJ FOR W HICH RENT OF RS.84 000/- WAS RECEIVED. HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN RENTAL INCOME IN THE P&L ACCOUNT. THE A.O. MADE ADDITION OF RS.84 000/- IN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE MATTER BEFOR E THE CIT(A) WHO HAS ALSO ADMITTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND CALLED FO R REMAND REPORT FROM THE A.O. UNDER RULE 46A. THE LD. A.O. OBJECTED NOT TO ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL ITA NO. 2744/AHD/2010 A.Y. 06-07 PAGE 3 EVIDENCE IN APPELLATE PROCEEDING ON THE BASIS OF RE MAND REPORT; HE DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITI ON. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED BANK STATEMENT OF KALUPUR COMMERCIAL CO.OP. BANK LT D. (KCCB LTD.) IN WHICH CASH OF RS.2 94 000/- WAS DEPOSITED. THE A.O . GAVE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH W AS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 1 LAC IN KCCB LTD . ON 30.01.2006. HE HAD SOLD THE MACHINERY TO M/S. JAY FABRICATOR PALEJ AN D SAME WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE WITH REFERENCE TO MACHINERY SOLD TO M/S. JAY FABRICATOR PALEJ. THUS HE TREATED RS.1 LAC AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. RE GARDING CASH DEPOSITED OF RS.1 50 000/- IN KCCB LTD. ON 10.12.2005 IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD WITHDRAWN THIS AMOUNT FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF M/S. MAHENDRA METAL WORKS BY CHEQUE NO.61701 AND ON THE SAME DAY THE A SSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED THE SAME AMOUNT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF M/ S. ABHAY ENGINEERS. THE A.O VERIFIED BOTH THE BANK ACCOUNTS BUT NO SUCH WITHDRAWAL FROM THE ACCOUNT OF M/S. ABHAY ENGINEERS WAS FOUND. THEREFO RE HE MADE ADDITION OF RS.1 50 000/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH. THUS TOTAL ADD ITION OF RS.2 50 000/- WERE MADE BY THE A.O. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE REMAND REPORT OF A.O. HAD OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD IN CASH PLA NT AND MACHINERY ON 10.12.2005 FOR WHICH NECESSARY EVIDENCES WERE PRODU CED BEFORE HIM. HE HAS ALSO CONSIDERED THE DEPRECIATION CHART FURNISHE D ALONGWITH RETURN TO PROVE THAT HE WAS HAVING PLANT AND MACHINERY IN THE BALAN CE SHEET. THE APPELLANT ITA NO. 2744/AHD/2010 A.Y. 06-07 PAGE 4 ALSO SHOWED THE CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF THE PLANT A ND MACHINERY. ACCORDINGLY RS.1.5 LACS CASH WAS TREATED BY THE LD. CIT(A) EXPL AINED BUT RS. 1 LAC WAS DEPOSITED IN BANK OF ACCOUNT WAS NOT FOUND EXPLAINE D. 5. THE A.O. DISALLOWED RS.9 417/- OUT OF TOTAL TELE PHONE EXPENSES OF RS.47 085/- FOR NON BUSINESS PURPOSE. THE CIT(A) C ONFIRMED THIS ADDITION ON GROUND OF DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. WAS REASONA BLE. 6. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT FILED THE COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT COPY OF KCCB LTD. COPY OF WR ITTEN SUBMISSION BEFORE THE CIT(A) COPY OF REMAND REPORT COPY OF LETTER D ATED 24.12.2009 FROM CIT(A) TO A.O. COPY OF WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 22 .02.2010 TO CIT(A) & COPY OF WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 11.12.2009 TO CIT(A) AN D ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED ALL THE EVIDENCES BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) BUT IN REMAND REPORT NO FINDINGS HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY THE LD. A.O. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO HAD NOT CONSIDERED THE EVIDENCES SUBMITTED DURING THE APPEL LATE PROCEEDING. HE SIMPLY ACCEPTED THE OBJECTION OF NOT ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BY THE A.O. AND ALLOWED THE APPEAL PARTLY. THEREFORE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE IT WAS REQUESTED TO RE-CONSIDER OF ALL THE EVIDENCES. AT THE OUTSET LD. SR. D.R. RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND ARGUED THAT THE A. O. HAS GIVEN SUFFICIENT TIME TO EXPLAIN THE ENTRIES. THUS THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) MAY BE CONFIRMED. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED EVIDENCES DURIN G THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS WHICH ARE EVIDENCED FROM THE ABOVE FIN DING. THEREFORE IN THE ITA NO. 2744/AHD/2010 A.Y. 06-07 PAGE 5 INTEREST OF JUSTICE CIT(A) IS DIRECTED TO RE-CONSI DER ALL THE EVIDENCES. ACCORDINGLY WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) F OR DE NOVO. 8. IN THE RESULT ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 3 1.10.2013 SD/- SD/- ( MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT) (T.R. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA ! ! ! ! '! '! '! '! / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / APPELLANT 2. / RESPONDENT 3. '(' ) * / CONCERNED CIT 4. *- / CIT (A) 5. !./ ) ) 12( / DR ITAT AHMEDABAD 6. /45 67 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ 8/ 1 ': ) 12( ;