Smt. Daxa Nareshbhai Santani,, Ahmedabad v. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(2),, Ahmedabad

ITA 404/AHD/2014 | 2009-2010
Pronouncement Date: 13-11-2017 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 40420514 RSA 2014
Assessee PAN BLLPS5138L
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 404/AHD/2014
Duration Of Justice 3 year(s) 9 month(s) 6 day(s)
Appellant Smt. Daxa Nareshbhai Santani,, Ahmedabad
Respondent The Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(2),, Ahmedabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 13-11-2017
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Tags No record found
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted SMC
Tribunal Order Date 13-11-2017
Date Of Final Hearing 07-08-2017
Next Hearing Date 07-08-2017
First Hearing Date 07-08-2017
Assessment Year 2009-2010
Appeal Filed On 07-02-2014
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD SMC BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S. S. GODARA JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 404/AHD/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) SMT. DAXA NARESHBHAI SANTANI 1-MARUTI BUNGLOW B/H. TAJ RESIDENCY HOTEL AIRPORT CIRCLE SARDAR NAGAR AHMEDABAD - 382475 APPELLANT VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 12(2) AHMEDABAD RESPONDENT PAN: BLLPS5138L /BY ASSESSEE : SHRI N. C. AMIN A.R. /BY REVENUE : SHRI MAHESH JIWADE SR. D.R. /DATE OF HEARING : 01.11.2017 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13.11.2017 ORDER PER S. S. GODARA JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 EMANATES FROM THE CIT(A)-I AHMEDABADS ORDER DATED 18.11.2013 IN CAS E NO. CIT(A)- I/WD.12(2)/174/2013-14 IN PROCEEDINGS U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT. 2. THE ASSESSEES FIRST SUBSTANTIVE GROUND SEEKS TO REVERSE BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ACTION MAKING SECTION 69 ADDITION OF R S.2LACS IN HER HANDS. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT SHE HAD CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED TH E AMOUNT IN QUESTION AS LOAN ITA NO. 404/AHD/14 [SMT. DAXA N. SANTANI VS. ITO] A.Y. 2009-10 - 2 - FROM HER HUSBANDS UNCLE SHRI KANIYALAL SONTANI. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER SENT THIS CREDITOR A NOTICE U/S.133(6) OF THE ACT. HE DID NO T APPEAR. THIS MADE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO INVOKE SECTION 69 OF THE ACT Q UA THE IMPUGNED SUM. 3. THE CIT(A) AFFIRMS ASSESSING OFFICERS FINDINGS AS UNDER: 3.2 DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE A.R. OF THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED AS UNDER: DURING THE COURSE OF EARLIER HEARING YOUR HONOUR HAVE ASKED ME REGARDING OPENING BALANCE AS ON 01.04.2009. IN THIS CONNECTI ON I HAVE TO STATE THAT I AM COMING FROM SINDHI COMMUNITY AND BEFORE MY MARRIAGE I WAS DOING STITCHING AND TAILORING WORK AND RESIDING WITH MY FATHER SHRI RAM LAL NIRUMAL RADHANI. AFTER MY MARRIAGE I HAVE CONTINUED AND DOING THE STITCHIN G AND TAILORING WORK AND IN THIS CONNECTION I HAVE FILED MY CAPITAL ACCOUNT BA LANCE SHEET FROM 1.4.2004 TO 31.03.2005 AND OPENING BALANCE CARRIED FORWARD AS O N 31.03.2009 AND COPIES OF THE SAME ARE LYING IN PAPER BOOK FROM PAGES 6 TO 10 . I HAVE STARTED FILING OF MY INCOME-TAX RETURNS FROM THE A.Y.2007-08 AND ONWARDS WHICH ARE LYING ON THE RECORD OF THE LEARNED A.O. AND EARLIER YEARS BALANC E SHEET FROM 2004-05 RELEVANT TO A.Y.2005-06 AND CONSIDERING THE SAME THE OPENING BALANCE SHOWN BY ME AS ON 31.03.2008 IS CARRIED FORWARD AND THEREFORE IT IS S ELF-EXPLANATORY AND AS SUCH ADDITIONS MADE BY LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AMOUNTI NG TO RS. 12 87 500/- WHICH INCLUDES LOAN TAKEN FROM SHRI. KANAIYALAL SANTANI A MOUNTING TO RS.2 00 000/- FOR WHICH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES AND CONFIRMATION IS LYI NG ON PAGE 17 OF PAPER BOOK AND FOR BANK LOAN CERTIFICATE FROM CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA MASKATI MARKET REVDI BAZAR AHMEDABAD IS AVAILABLE ON PAGE 18 OF PAPER B OOK.' 4. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND SUB MISSIONS OF THE A.R. OF THE APPELLANT CAREFULLY. IT IS SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT HAD STATED THAT SHE HAD TAKEN A LOAN OF RS.2 00 000/- FROM SHRI KANAIYALAL SANTANI HUSBAND OF THE APPELLANT. ONLY CONFIRMATION OF SHRI KANAIYALAL SANTANI WAS FILED BEFORE THE ASS ESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE/S. 133(6) OF THE I.T. ACT 1961 TO SH RI KANAIYALAL SANTANI ASKING HIM TO CONFIRMATION OF THE LOAN GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT. HO WEVER THE SAID LETTER WAS WRITTEN BACK UNSERVED. NO OTHER EVIDENCE REGARDING THE SOURCES O F SHRI KANAIYALAL SANTANI WERE FILED. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE A.R . OF THE APPELLANT WAS ASKED TO JUSTIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN FROM SHRI KANAIYALAL SA NTANI AND ALSO TO PROVE CREDITWORTHINESS OF SHRI KANAIYALAL SANTANI. HOWEVE R NO SUCH EVIDENCE WAS FILED. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE A.R. OF TH E APPELLANT STATED THAT HE WAS NOT IN POSITION TO FIFE ANY FURTHER EVIDENCE AND RELIED ON LY ON THE SUBMISSION MADE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE LOAN FROM SHRI KANAIYALAL SANTANI CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS GENUINE. SINCE THE TRANSACTION HAS NOT BEEN PROVED BEFORE THE ASSESSIN G; OFFICER OR EVEN DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF SHRI KANAIYALA L SANTANI HAS ALSO NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE ADDITION MAD E BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS CONFIRMED. 4. HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES REITERATING THEIR RESPECT IVE STANDS. LEARNED COUNSEL REPRESENTING ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY CONTENDS THAT BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE ERRED IN MAKING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION AMOUNTING TO RS.2LACS IN CASE OF THE ABOVE ITA NO. 404/AHD/14 [SMT. DAXA N. SANTANI VS. ITO] A.Y. 2009-10 - 3 - CREDITOR/HER CLOSE RELATIVE. HE SEEKS TO REFER TO A SSESSEES PAPER BOOK ON RECORD COMPRISING OF VARIOUS DOCUMENTS IN THE NATURE OF IN COME TAX RETURNS CAPITAL ACCOUNT AS WELL AS CONFIRMATION FROM HER ABOVE RELA TIVE. WE FIND NO MERIT TO AGREE WITH ALL THESE ARGUMENTS AS THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABO UT THE ABOVE CREDITOR BEING HER CLOSE RELATIVE (SUPRA). IT WAS THEREFORE VERY WELL WITHIN HER CAPACITY TO PRODUCE THE SAID CREDITOR BEFORE EITHER OF THE TWO AUTHORITIES INSTEAD OF RELYING UPON MERE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AND CONFIRMATION. HER ACT OF FILING CONFIRMATION ON HER CLOSE RELATIVES BEHALF LENDS CREDENCE TO BOTH THE LOWER AUTHROTIES ACTION WHEREIN IT CAN BE SAFELY IMPLIED THAT THE SAID PARTY WAS VERY MUCH IN TOUCH WITH HER. WE FURTHER QUOTE HONBLE APEX COURTS LANDMARK DECISIO N IN CIT VS. DURGA PRASAD MORE (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) AND SUMATI DAYAL VS. CI T (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC) THAT THE MOST CRUCIAL TEST IN SUCH CASES IS THAT OF HUMAN PROBABILITY TO BE APPLIED IN APPRECIATING THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE. WE THEREFORE CO NCLUDE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVE GENUINENESS OF HER EXPLANATION T O HAVE AVAILED LOAN FROM ABOVE CLOSE RELATIVE ON THE BASIS OF MERE DOCUMENTARY EVI DENCE. WE THEREFORE REJECT THIS FORMER SUBSTANTIVE GROUND. 5. THIS LEAVES US WITH ASSESSEES LATTER GRIEVANCE CHALLENGING CORRECTNESS OF SECTION 69 UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT ADDITION OF RS.6L ACS AS RESTRICTED TO RS.3LACS ONLY IN THE LOWER APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AS UNDER: 5.1 IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE ADDITION OBSERVING AS UNDER: '4.2 THE DETAILS REGARDING RS.6 00 000/- MADE THROU GH HER OWN CAPITAL ON VERIFICATION OF RETURN FILLED BY THE ASSESSEE IT WA S NOTICED THAT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION YEAR RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 31 /03/2010 SO THE RETURN WAS NOT FILLED IN TIME HENCE THE DOCUMENT IS NOT SUPPO RTED THE INVESTMENT IN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY OF RS.6 00 000/- IS TREATED UNEX PLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69 OF THE IT ACT. THEREFORE THE SAME IS ADDED BACK IN TOT AL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4.3 IN THIS REGARD SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED ON 29/1 1/2011 FOR REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE AND HEARING WAS FIXED ON 05/12/2011 BUT COULD NOT COMPLIED BY THE A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE AND REQU ESTED ON TELEPHONE FOR ADJOURNMENT FOR FEW DAYS AND SAME IS CONSIDERED. O N 15/12/2011 SHRI TEKWANI A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED WRITTEN SUBMISSI ON FOR CONSIDERATION THAT ASSESSEE HAS SOURCE OF OWN CAPITAL OF RS6.00 000/-T HROUGH VARIOUS SOURCES BUT AS PER DISCUSSION IN PARA 4.2 THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FI LED RETURN OF INCOME IN TIME LIMIT OF SECTION 139 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. HENCE THE SA ME IS NOT TAKING IN TO CONSIDERATION AND ADDITION MADE ACCORDINGLY.' ITA NO. 404/AHD/14 [SMT. DAXA N. SANTANI VS. ITO] A.Y. 2009-10 - 4 - 5.2 DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE A.R. OF T HE APPELLANT SUBMITTED AS UNDER: 'DURING THE COURSE OF EARLIER HEARING I HAVE SUBMIT TED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON 26.9.2013 AND IN FURTHERANCE THERETO I HAVE TO SUBMIT AS UNDE R: THE LEARNED A. O. HAS DISCUSSED IN PARA 4.2 AND 4.3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH IS R EPRODUCED AS UNDER: '4.2 - THE DETAILS REGARDING RS.6 00 000/- MADE THR OUGH HER OWN CAPITAL ON VERIFICATION OF RETURN FILLED BY THE ASSESSEE IT WAS NOTICED THA T YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION YEAR RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 31/03/2010 SO THE RETURN WAS N OT FILLED IN TIME HENCE THE DOCUMENT IS NOT SUPPORTED THE INVESTMENT IN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY OF RS. 6 00 000/- IS TREATED UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69 OF THE I. T. ACT. THE REFORE THE SAME IS ADDED BACK IN TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4.2 - IN THIS REGARD SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED ON 29 .11.2011 FOR REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE AND HEARING -WAS FIXED ON 05 /12/2011 BUT COULD NOT COMPLIED BY THE A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE AND REQUESTED ON TELEPHON E FOR ADJOURNMENT FOR FEW DAYS AND SAME IS CONSIDERED. ON 15/12/2011 SHRI TEKWANI A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED WRITTEN SUBMISSION FOR CONSIDERATION THAT ASSESSEE HAS SOURCE OF OWN CAPITAL OF RS.6 00 00/- THROUGH VARIOUS SOURCES BUT AS PER TH E DISCUSSION IN PARA 4.2 THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED RETURN OF INCOME IN TIME LIMIT OF SEC TION 139 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT HENCE THE SAME IS NOT TAKING IN TO CONSIDERATION AND ADDITIO N MADE ACCORDINGLY. (ADDITION OF RS.6 00 00)' 1. THE LEARNED A.O. HAS MADE ADDITIONS OF RS.6 00 0 00/- AS INVESTMENT MADE IN THE HOUSE PROPERTY U/S 69. THE SECTION 69 SAYS THAT WHE RE IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS MAD E INVESTMENT WHICH ARE NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IF MAINTAINED BY HIM AND TH E ASSESSEE OFFERS NO EXPLANATION THEN ADDITIONS CAN BE MADE U/S 69 OF THE I.T.ACT 1961. I N THE CASE OF APPELLANT THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THER EFORE ADDITION U/S 69 MADE BY LEARNED A.O. IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 2. THE LEARNED A.D. HAS GIVEN FINDING IN PARA 4.3 T HAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED RETURN OF INCOME WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT OF SEC. 139 WHICH IS A LSO INCORRECT FACT. THE RETURN OF INCOME FROM A.YS. 2007-08 TO 2009-10 HAVE BEEN FILED U/S 1 39(4) AND THEREFORE IT IS FILED U/S 139 OF THE I.T. ACT 1961. THE APPELLANT HAS FURNISHED T HE DETAILS IN THIS REGARD FOR A.Y. 200-02 TO 2009-10 VIDE LETTER DATED 15.12.11 WHICH HAS NOT BEEN CHALLENGED BY LEARNED A.O. AND THEREFORE CONSIDERING THE SAME ALSO THE APPEAL OF T HE APPELLANT BE DECIDED ON MERITS. 3. THE LEARNED A.O. HAS GIVEN FINDING IN TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER IN PAR A 4.3 THAT RETURN IS NOT FILED IN TIME LIMIT OF SEC. 139 AND HENCE AD DITION IS MADE ACCORDINGLY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS BOUND TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF THE RETURN F ILED U/S 139(4) AND DETERMINE THE INCOME BY MAKING ASSESSMENT FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESS MENT YEAR. THE LAW PRESCRIBES A TIME LIMIT FOR FILING RETURN THAT IT ALSO PERMITS A BELA TED RETURN WITHIN THE FURTHER TIME SPECIFIED SO THAT IT HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED AS A RIGHT AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE TO FILE BELATED RETURN. IT ALSO STATE THAT THE INCOME DISCLOSED IN THE BELATED RETURN COULD NOT BE TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME ONCE IT HAS BEEN DISCLOSED SO B ELATEDLY. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: (I) SHAN TRUST V. ASST. CIT [2006] 5 SOT 761 (AHD) (II) DEPUTY CIT V. RAJA UDAYSHANKAR [2006] 7 SOT 6 80 (BANG) (III) NAGIN DAS M. GONDIA V. DEPYTT CIT [2004] 83 TIJ (MUM) 151 (IV) CHANDRA BHAN V. ASST. CIT [2006] 98 ITO 6 (AGRA) (V) C.P. NANDA V. DEPUTY CIT[2005] 144 TAXMAN (MAG) 13 (PUNE)(TRIB) (VI) CIT V. KUMKUM KOHLI (MRS.) [2005] 2 76 ITR 589 (DELHI) (VII) VIDYA MADANLAL MALANI (SOU) V.ASST. CIT[2 000] 74 ITO 341 (PUNE) ITA NO. 404/AHD/14 [SMT. DAXA N. SANTANI VS. ITO] A.Y. 2009-10 - 5 - A READING OF SECTION 139(1) AND 139(4) SHOWS THAT A RETURN FILED WITHIN THE TIME SPECIFIED U/S. 139(4) HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS HAVIN G BEEN MADE WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED UNDER SEC. 139(1). RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE DECISI ON OF (1) TRUSTEES OF TULSIDAS GOPALJI CHARITABLE CHALESHWAR TEMPLE VS. CIT 207 ITR P. 36 8 (BOM) AND (2) KAREEM SONS (PVT) LTD. 198 ITR P. 543 (KAR) [FB] AND HENCE CONSIDERI NG THE SAME ALSO THE ADDITION MADE BY LEARNED A.O. DESERVES TO BE DELETED. UNDISCLOSED INCOME- RETURNS NO FILED ON DUE DATE- DOES NOT IPSO FACTO RESULT IN INCOME BE TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME - INCOME -TAX ACT 1961 S. 139(1). RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF JYOTI HARSHAD MEHTA VS. A CIT ITAT MUMBAI BENCH REPORTED IN 319 ITR P. 107 (MUM)(AT) SSA RETURN TO BE FILED UNDER SUB-SECTION (4) OF SE CTION 139 CAN BE FILED WITHIN THE MAXIMUM TIME LIMIT FIXED IN THE SECTION 139(4) THE RETURN FILED IS VALID RETURN AND NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF SUCH RETURN AN D THEREFORE ADDITION MADE BY LEARNED A.D. DESERVES TO BE DELETED CONSIDERING THE ABOVE STATED FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE AND VARIOUS DECISIONS THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT BE DECIDED ON MERITS.' 6. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND SUB MISSIONS OF THE A.R. OF THE APPELLANT CAREFULLY. IT IS SEEN THAT NO DETAILS ABO UT SOURCES OF INCOME WERE FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HENCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAD E THE ADDITION ' DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE A.R. OF THE APPELLANT FI LED THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT FROM 31.03 2005 TO 31 03 700Q TO SHOW THAT THE APP ELLANT HAD CLOSING CASH BALANCE OF RS.6 67 761/-. HOWEVER THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT HAD NEV ER BEEN FILED BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT. IT WAS ALSO NOTICED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED GIFTS IN MARRIAGE OF RS.2 39 270/- AND HAVING INCOMES FOR YEAR FROM A.YS .2000-01 TO 2007-08. HOWEVER NO RETURNS HAD BEEN FILED FOR THE EARLIER PERIOD. THE FIRST RETURN IN THIS CASE WAS FILED ONLY FOR THE A.Y. 2007-08 ON 04.09.2008. THE CAPITAL: ACCOUN T SHOWED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD GIVEN LOANS AND ADVANCES TO SEVERAL PARTIES. HOWEVER NO DETAILS REGARDING SUCH LOANS AND ADVANCES WERE PRODUCED DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEED INGS. NO EVIDENCE WHAT SO EVER WAS PRODUCED DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS TO JUSTIF Y THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAD INCOMES IN THE EARLIER YEARS. IT IS SEEN THAT THE A PPELLANT HAD FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y.2007-08 DECLARING STITCHING OF RS.1 58' 790/-IN COMES OF RS.1 .72 460/- AND RS.1 72 455/- FOR A.YS.2008-09 AND 2009-10 RESPECTI VELY. IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE A.R.OF THE APPELLANT WAS NOT ABLE TO ADDUCE ANY EVI DENCE TO JUSTIFY THE INCOME OF THE EARLIER YEARS FOR WHICH NO RETURN WAS FILED AND ALS O THE FACT THAT NO DETAILS OF THE LOANS AND ADVANCES SHOWN TO BE GIVEN WERE AVAILABLE AND T HE FACT THAT THE A.R. OF THE APPELLANT STATED THAT NO FURTHER EVIDENCE COULD BE FILED IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT THE CAPITAL SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT IS NOT GENUINE. IN VIEW OF THE FACT T HAT THE APPELLANT HAD FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.YS. 2007-08 AND 2008-09 AND HAS SHOWN INCOME DURING THE YEAR THE ENTIRE CAPITAL BALANCE AVAILABLE WITH THE APPELLANT SHOULD BE ESTIMATED AT RS.3 00 000/-. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER AT RS.6 00 000/- IS REDUCED TO RS.3 00 000/-. 6. LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITS THAT B OTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT ACCEPTED ASSESSEES EXPLANATION BASED ON H ER CAPITAL ACCOUNT BEING MAINTAINED SINCE LONG. HIS FURTHER CASE IS THAT SU CH AN ADDITION OUGHT NOT TO HAVE BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF OPENING BALANCE AS HELD B Y VARIOUS HONBLE COURTS FROM TIME TO TIME. THE FACTUAL POSITION HOWEVER IS TO T HE CONTRARY. IT HAS COME ON ITA NO. 404/AHD/14 [SMT. DAXA N. SANTANI VS. ITO] A.Y. 2009-10 - 6 - RECORD THAT THE CIT(A) HAS GRANTED SUFFICIENT WEIGH TAGE TO HER IN RESTRICTING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION FROM RS.6LACS TO RS.3LACS ONLY BY TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS AS WELL AS DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. WE THEREFORE FIND NO MERIT IN ASSESSEES FACTUAL AS WELL AS LEGAL ARGUMENTS SINCE THE ABOVE EXTRACTED FINDINGS HAVE GONE UNREBUTTED IN THE COURSE OF HEARING. IT I S EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED COGENT ORAL OR DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO ACTUAL LY PROVE THE FACT OF HER HAVING CARRYING OUT STITCHING OR ANY OTHER INCOME EARNING VOCATION. WE THEREFORE DECLINE ASSESSEES LATTER SUBSTANTIVE GROUND AS WELL. 7. THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. [PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 13 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017.] SD/- SD/- (N. K. BILLAIYA) (S. S. GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL M EMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 13/11/2017 TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- / REVENUE 2 / ASSESSEE ! / CONCERNED CIT 4 !- / CIT (A) ( )*+ --. . /0 / DR ITAT AHMEDABAD 1 +23 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / . // . /0