Shree Vipul Shah, Bhavnagar v. The Income tax Officer,Ward-1(3),, Bhavnagar

ITA 3148/AHD/2011 | 2007-2008
Pronouncement Date: 24-04-2015 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 314820514 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN AHUPS1067L
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 3148/AHD/2011
Duration Of Justice 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 12 day(s)
Appellant Shree Vipul Shah, Bhavnagar
Respondent The Income tax Officer,Ward-1(3),, Bhavnagar
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 24-04-2015
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 24-04-2015
Assessment Year 2007-2008
Appeal Filed On 12-12-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI SHAILEND RA K UMAR YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . ITA. NO. 3 148 /AHD/20 11 (ASSES SMENT YEAR: 200 7 - 0 8 ) SHREE VIPUL SHAH 34 ARIHANT KRUPA JANTA SOCIETY NO.1 BOTAD DISTRICT BHAVNAGAR 364710 APPELLANT VS. THE ITO WARD - 1(3) BHAVNAGAR RESPONDENT PAN: A HUPS1067L / BY APPELLANT : SHRI TUSHAR HEMANI A.R. / BY RESPONDENT : SHRI ROOPCHAND SR . D. R. / DATE OF HEARING : 10 .0 4 .2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24 . 0 4 .2015 I.T.A. NO . 3 148 /A/11 FOR A.Y. 0 7 - 0 8 ) ( SHREE VIPUL SHAH VS. ITO) PAGE 2 ORDER PER SHAILE NDRA KUMAR YADAV J.M: THI S APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY ASSESSE E AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - XX AHMEDABAD DATED 1 5 .09.2011 FOR A.Y. 2007 - 08 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF ID. AO IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.8 53 806/ - OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS. 16 50 000/ - AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S. 68 OF THE ACT. 2. BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE PASSED THE ORDERS WITHOUT PROPERLY APPRECIATING TH E FACT AND THAT THEY FURTHER ERRED IN GROSSLY IGNORING VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS EXPLANATIONS AND INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT FROM TIME TO TIME WHICH OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BEFORE PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THIS ACTION OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIE S IS IN CLEAR BREACH OF LAW AND PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND THEREFORE DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF ID. AO IN CHARGING INTEREST U/S 234B/C/D OF THE ACT. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRE D IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO IN INITIATING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(L)(C) OF THE ACT. 2. ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS.16 50 000/ - TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF ASSESSEE BY INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. AS SESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED CASH AMOUNTING TO RS.16 95 000/ - INTO BANK ACCOUNT ON I.T.A. NO . 3 148 /A/11 FOR A.Y. 0 7 - 0 8 ) ( SHREE VIPUL SHAH VS. ITO) PAGE 3 VARIOUS DATES. IN THIS REGARD ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE SOURCES OF SUCH CASH DEPOSITS INTO BANK ACCOUNT AS UNDER: (A) CASH ON HAND ON 01/04/2006 RS.3 75 000/ - (B) FROM MOTHER IN LAW RS.4 25 000/ - (C) CASH RECEIVED BACK RS.1 75 000/ - (D) CASH RECEIVED FROM POST OFFICER RECURRING ACCOUNT RS.1 06 194/ - (E) TRANSFER FROM ONE BANK ACCOUNT TO ANOTHER BANK ACCOUNT RS.4 65 000/ - (F) CASH OF RS.1 00 000 / - RECEIVED FROM WIFES BANK ACCOUNT. (G) CASH RECEIVED FROM THE POST OFFICE RECURRING RS.80 000/ - HOWEVER ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTING THE SAME MADE ADDITION OF RS.16 50 000/ - UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. 2. MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHEREIN VARIOUS CONTENTIONS WERE RAISED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE AND HAVING CONSIDERED THE SAME CIT(A) SUSTAINED ADDITION OF RS.8 53 806/ - OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.16 50 000/ - AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S. 68 OF THE ACT. SAME HAS BEEN OPPOSED ON BEHALF OF REVENUE. THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT REVENUE HAS FILED ANY APPEAL REGARDING RELIEF GRANTED BY CIT(A). SO ISSUE BEFORE US IS AGAINST SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.8 53 806/ - OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS. 1 6 50 000/ - AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S. 68 OF THE ACT. 2.1 THE SUSTAINED ADDITION OF RS.8 53 806/ - HAS COMPONENT OF AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM MOTHER - IN - LAW OF RS.75 000/ - AND I.T.A. NO . 3 148 /A/11 FOR A.Y. 0 7 - 0 8 ) ( SHREE VIPUL SHAH VS. ITO) PAGE 4 RS.4 25 000/ - . AS MENTIONED IN ASSESSMENT ORDER ASSESSEE STATED TO HAVE RS.3 75 000/ - AND RS.0.5 LACS OUT OF TOTAL RS.4.25 LACS FROM HIS MOTHER - IN - LAW WHEREAS DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THIS GOT ENHANCED TO RS.5 LACS. NO EVIDENCE EXCEPT 7/12 EXTRACT WAS FURNISHED BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER . ACCORDING TO 7/12 EXTRACT FURNISHED SHE OWNED 7.32 HECTARES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE REASONS FOR REJECTING EXPLANATION BY ASSESSING OFFICER ARE AS UNDER: THE ASSESSEES MOTHER - IN - LAW EXPIRED ON 28 - 05 - 2008. THERE ARE 6 PERSONS (I.E. TWO BROTHER + 4 SISTER OF IN THE MOTHER IN LAW FAMILY) ARE AS A KHATEDAR IN 7/12 ACCOUNT. ONE OF THEM IS THE ASSESSEE WIFE AS KHATEDAR. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED IN SUPPORTS SALES BILL AND RECEIPT CASH IN THE HANDS OF MOTHER - IN - LAW. THEREFORE THE RECEIPT IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE CONSIDERED IS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DISPUTED LAND HOLDING AS MENTIONED IN RELEVANT FIR EXTRACT BUT DISPUTING THE INCOME AND SHARE THEREOF IN THE HANDS OF MOTHER - IN - LAW. ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE REJECT ED THE STAND OF ASSESSEE A FTER TAKING SUBMISS IONS OF MOTHER - IN - LAW AND OTHER RELATED FACTS IN THIS REGARD WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DONE IN THIS CASE. IT AMOUNTS TO VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE WHICH IS NOT JUSTIFIED. SO IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WE RESTORE THIS WHOLE ISSUE TO ASSESSING OFFICER WITH DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE SAME ON FACT AND LAW AFTER PROVIDING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO ASSESSEE. 2.2 NEXT COMPONENT OF ADDITION IS CASH RECEIVED FROM WIFES BANK ACCOUNT OF RS.1 LAKH. ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT I.T.A. NO . 3 148 /A/11 FOR A.Y. 0 7 - 0 8 ) ( SHREE VIPUL SHAH VS. ITO) PAGE 5 THIS IS THE ONLY AMOU NT WITHDRAWAL MADE BY ASSESSEES WIFE SAME SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO ASSESSEE. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTHING CONTRARY ON RECORD TO FALSIFY THIS STAND OF ASSESSEE. SO THIS ADDITION IS NOT JUSTIFIED. SAME IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED . 2.3 NEXT COMPONENT O F SUSTAINED ADDITION IS OF RS.1 16 572/ - . ACCORDING TO REVENUE AUTHORITY THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER IN THIS REGARD. THE SALARY INCOME OF ASSESSEE WAS RS.2.05 LACS . SO REVENUE AUTHORITIES WERE NOT INCLINED TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTION THAT HE COULD HA VE HAD SAVINGS IN CASH OF SUCH AMOUNT AT THE BEGINNING OF YEAR. MOREOVER ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED ANY OTHER SOURCES OF INCOME. IN THIS BACKGROUND CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER WHO MADE THIS ADDITION BY TREATING SAME AS UNEXPLAINED. SAME IS UPHELD. 2.4 NEXT COMPONENT OF SUSTAINED ADDITION IS OF RS.73 000/ - AND RS.30 000/ - CLAIMED TO BE CASH WITHDRAWAL FROM ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT WITH STATE BANK OF SAURASHTRA. THE SAID AMOUNTS WERE CLAIMED TO BE WITHDRAWN ON 26.0 2.2005 AND 12.03.2005 WHEREAS THE FIRST OF 12 CASH DEPOSITS MADE (OF RS.60 000/ - ) ON 21.04.2006. DUE TO TIME GAP BETWEEN TWO TRANSACTIONS EXPLANATIONS W ERE NOT FOUND CONVINCING BY ASSESSING OFFICER AND ADDITION WAS MADE WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY CIT(A). A CCORDING TO US T HIS ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BY I.T.A. NO . 3 148 /A/11 FOR A.Y. 0 7 - 0 8 ) ( SHREE VIPUL SHAH VS. ITO) PAGE 6 ASSESSING OFFICER IS BASED ON SURMISES AND CON JUNCTURE WHICH IS NOT JUSTIFIED . ACCORDINGLY SAME IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 3 . AS A RESULT APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED AS INDICATED ABOVE . PR ONOUNCED 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 / /