Dr. Archanaben D.Shah, Dahod v. The ACIT.,Cent.Circle-1,, Baroda

ITA 2946/AHD/2009 | 2007-2008
Pronouncement Date: 22-01-2010 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 294620514 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN AJMPS9166Q
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 2946/AHD/2009
Duration Of Justice 2 month(s) 24 day(s)
Appellant Dr. Archanaben D.Shah, Dahod
Respondent The ACIT.,Cent.Circle-1,, Baroda
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 22-01-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted SMC
Tribunal Order Date 22-01-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 18-01-2010
Next Hearing Date 18-01-2010
Assessment Year 2007-2008
Appeal Filed On 29-10-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH 'SMC' (BEFORE SHRI N S SAINI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA NO.2946/AHD/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:- 2007-08) DR. ARCHANABEN D SHAH STATION ROAD DAHOD PAN: AJMPS 9166 Q V/S THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 BARODA [APPELLANT] [RESPONDENT] APPELLANT BY :- SHRI D K PARIKH CA RESPONDENT BY:- SHRI GOVIND SINGHAL SENIOR DR O R D E R THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (AP PEALS)-VI AHMEDABAD [THE CIT(A)] DATED 22 ND SEPTEMBER 2009 PASSED IN APPEAL NO.CIT(A)-IV/142-B/CC-1/08-09 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: 1 THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDI TION OF RS.83 500/- CONSIDERING THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED AND UNACCOUNTED INCOME. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT JEWELLERY OF RS.83 500 /- VALUED ON THE OPENING DATE OF THE BALANCE SHEET IS GENUINE EXPLA INED GOLD ORNAMENTS AND JEWELLERY AS HER STRIDHAN RECEIVED AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE AND OTHER OCCASIONS. MOREOVER BASED ON TH E BOARD CIRCULAR GOLD ORNAMENTS AND JEWELLERY OF RS.83 500/ - IS WITHIN THE LIMIT AND CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS UNEXPLAINED. IT I S SUBMITTED THE ADDITION BE DELETED. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING TH E DETAILED SUBMISSIONS MADE ALONG WITH DETAILS OF HOUSEHOLD EX PENSES AND 2 2 BOARDS CIRCULAR THAT GOLD ORNAMENTS AND JEWELLERY ARE WITHIN THE LIMIT OF STRIDHAN AND MUST BE ACCEPTED LOOKING TO T HE SIZE OF THE FAMILY AND OVER ALL WITHDRAWAL OF THE FAMILY. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT GOLD ORNAMENTS AND JEWELLERY OF RS.83 500/- BE CONS IDERED AS STRIDHAN DULY DISCLOSED AND THE SAME NOT BE TREATE D AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR. 2 THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THERE WAS A DIFFERE NCE OF RS.83 500/- IN THE OPENING CAPITAL. THE ASSESSEE EX PLAINED BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER THAT AT THE TIME OF F ILING OF THE RETURN JEWELLERY WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE BALANCE S HEET BUT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE REVISED CA PITAL ACCOUNT OF RS.20 66 343/- WAS FILED INCLUDING JEWELLERY OF RS.83 500/-. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THIS E XPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND MADE ADDITION OF RS.83 500/- TREAT ING THE SAME AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3 BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (AP PEALS) THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT IT COULD NOT DISCLOSE H ER PERSONAL JEWELLERY IN THE BALANCE SHEET AND HENCE THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE OF RS.83 500/- IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT AS COMPARED TO T HE ASSET SIDE OF THE BALANCE SHEET. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN ONLY THE ASSETS GENERATED DURING THE COUR SE OF HER BUSINESS IN THE BALANCE SHEET. THE GOLD ORNAMENTS A ND JEWELLERY WERE HER STRIDHAN RECEIVED AT THE TIME OF HER MARRI AGE AND OTHER OCCASIONS AND HENCE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO BE TAKEN IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT AND SHOWN IN THE REVISED BALANCE SHEET. BAL ANCE SHEET WAS ALSO FILED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS DEBITING THE JEWELLERY AND CREDITING THE CAPITAL AC COUNT. THE 3 3 LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE SU BMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND MADE ADDITION TO THEINCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4 THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE OBSERVE D THAT THERE WAS NO DISPUTE THAT THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE OF RS.83 500/- IN OPENING BALANCE OF THE CAPITAL. THE CONTENTION OF T HE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE THAT DIFFERENCE WAS ON ACCOUNT OF JEWE LLERY IS AN AFTER-THOUGHT SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF SEARCH IT WAS THE SAFEST WAY TO SET OFF THE DIFFERE NCE BY WAY OF JEWELLERY. THE ASSESSEE TRIED TO SET OFF THE DIFFER ENCE IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT BY THE EXACT FIGURE OF RS.83 500/- WITHOUT SPECIFYING QUANTUM OF JEWELLERY AND SILVER ARTICLES / UTENSILS IF ANY. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND IN THE A BSENCE OF ANY CORROBORATING EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE THE L EARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER. 5 THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSE SSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS). 6 THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (AP PEALS). 7 I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED TH E ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE O N RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVE D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED HER RETURN IN ITR 4 WHEREIN SHE DISCLOSED HER 4 4 CAPITAL AS ON 31-03-2007 AT RS.19 82 844/- AND THER E-FROM DECLARED THE SOURCE OF ALL THE ASSETS DISCLOSED IN THE SAID RETURN. HOWEVER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT HEARING TH E BALANCE SHEET SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOWED HER CAPITAL AS ON 31-3- 2007 AT RS.20 66 344/-. THUS THERE WAS A DIFFERENC E OF RS.83 500/- IN THE CAPITAL AS ON 31-03-2007. THE CO RRESPONDING DIFFERENCE IN THE ASSET SIDE WAS JEWELLERY OF RS.83 500/-. THE ABOVE JEWELLERY WHICH WAS DISCLOSED IN THE BALANCE SHEET FILED AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT HEARING WAS NOT PREPARED UND ER ITR 4. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE JEWELLERY BEING STR IDHAN WAS NOT REQUIRED TO BE DISCLOSED IN ITR 4 AND THEREFORE IT WAS NOT DISCLOSE IN ITR 4 IN THE ASSETS SIDE AND THEREFORE THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT ON THE LIABILITY SIDE STOOD REDUCED BY THIS AMOUNT. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER OPINED THAT THIS RS.83 50 0/- WAS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE AD DED THE SAME TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ON APPEAL THE LEARN ED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ALSO OPINED TH AT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS AN AFTER-THOUGHT AND THEREFORE CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFIC ER. I FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.83 500/ - IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT BY SUBMITTING THAT JEWELLERY OF RS.83 500/- WAS POSSESSED BY HER AS ON 31-03-2007 WAS NOT DISCLOSED IN THE ITR 4 AND THUS THERE WAS ACTUALLY NO DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE BALANCE SHEET IN ITR 4 AND THE BALANCE SHEET FILED DURING T HE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HOWEVER I FIND THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS DISCLOSED THE SAID JEWELLERY OF RS.83 500/- AS HER STRIDHAN. I FIND THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT EXAMINED THE IS SUE WHICH WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE SUCH STRIDHAN AS ON 31 -03-2007 OR 5 5 NOT. I FIND THAT ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT BROUGHT ON R ECORD THE DETAILS OF THE JEWELLERY OF RS.83 500/- WHICH WAS CLAIMED B Y HER AS HER STRIDHAN. THE QUANTITY DETAILS OF RS.83 500/- OF JE WELLERY WAS ALSO NOT FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE EITHER BEFORE TH E LOWER AUTHORITIES OR BEFORE ME. IN THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCE S IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION IT SHALL BE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ON THIS I SSUE AND RESTORE THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER A FTER CONSIDERING THE DETAILS OF JEWELLERY INCLUDING QUAN TITIES AND ALL OTHER MATERIALS WHICH THE ASSESSEE MAY FILE WILL DE CIDE THAT SUCH JEWELLERY COULD BE POSSESSED BY THE ASSESSEE AS HER STRIDHAN OR NOT. IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION TO THE EXTENT TO WHI CH THE JEWELLERY COULD BE ACCEPTED AS ASSESSEES STRIDHAN SHOULD NOT BE ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE I S ALSO DIRECTED TO FILE THE FULL DETAILS AVAILABLE WITH HER BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AS AND WHEN CALLED UPON TO DO SO BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER. I ORDER ACCORDINGLY. THU S THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . ORDER SIGNED AND PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT TODAY ON 22-01-2010. SD/- (N S SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE : 22-01-2010 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 6 6 1. DR. ARCHANABEN D SHAH STATION ROAD DAHOD 2. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 BARODA 3. CIT CONCERNED 4. CIT(A)-IV AHMEDABAD 5. THE DR ITAT AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT AHMEDABA