Smt. Manjulaben D.Sachdev, Ahmedabad V. The Dy.CIT.,Cent.Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad

CO 276/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7882 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 26-10-2012
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 26-11-2009
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SNEHAL THAKKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: D C PATWARI
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Additional evidence

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, C BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI G. C. GUPTA, HONBLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.105 TO 109/ AHD/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 TO 2005-06) DCIT, CC-1(1), AHMEDABAD VS. SMT. MANJULABEN D SACHDEV, 105, DEVASHISH FLATS, PRITAMNAGAR, PALDI, AHMEDABAD PAN/GIR NO. : AKIPS9111L C.O.NO. 272 TO 276/AHD/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02 TO 2005-06) SMT. MANJULABEN D SACHDEV, VS. DCIT, CC1(1), 105, DEVASHISH FLATS, AHMEDABAD PRITAMNAGAR, PALDI, AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI D C PATWARI, CIT DR RESPONDENT BY: SHRI SNEHAL THAKKAR DATE OF HEARING: 26.10.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30.11.2012 O R D E R PER BENCH:- ALL THESE 5 APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE AND C ROSS OBJECTIONS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001 -02 TO 2005-06 WHICH ARE DIRECTED AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A) - III, AHMEDABAD ALL DATED 22.07.2009. SINCE COMMON ISSUE IS INVOLVED, ALL THESE APPEALS AND I.T.A.NO.105-109 /AHD/2009 C.O.NOS.272-276/AHD/2009 2 CROSS OBJECTIONS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. LD. A.R. DID NOT PRESS THE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILE D BY THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY, ALL THESE FIVE CROSS OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 3. REGARDING THE REVENUES APPEALS FOR THESE FIVE A SSESSMENT YEARS, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. D.R. THAT GROUND NO.1 OF T HE REVENUES APPEAL IN ALL THE FIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS, IS REGARDING ADMI SSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BY LD. CIT(A). HE SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT( A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ACCEPTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE DESPITE THE FA CT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DELIBERATELY NOT COMPLIED WITH THE REQUIREMENT AT T HE ASSESSMENT STAGE. 4. AS AGAINST THIS, IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R. THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS ADMITTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AFTER CONSIDERING THE REMAND REPORT OF THE A.O. AND HENCE, HIS ORDER ON THIS ISSUE SHOULD BE CONFIRMED. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSE D THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORIT IES BELOW. WE FIND THAT IT IS NOTED BY LD. CIT(A) IN PARA 5.B OF HIS O RDER THAT ON A HOLISTIC CONSIDERATION, IT APPEARS THAT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES , THE OPPORTUNITY GIVEN TO FILE DETAILS AS CONFIRMATIONS BEFORE HE A.O. WAS INADEQUATE. HE HAS ALSO NOTED THAT THE DETAILS SUCH AS COPY OF ACCOUNT S/BANK STATEMENTS ETC. WERE CULLED OUT OF THE DETAILS/BOOKS PROVIDED BEFOR E THE A.O. CONSIDERING ALL THESE FACTS, WE FIND NO GOOD REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE IN ANY OF THE FIV E ASSESSMENT YEARS. GROUND NO.1 IN THE REVENUES APPEALS IN ALL THE FIV E ASSESSMENT YEARS IS REJECTED. 6. REGARDING GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN A LL THE FIVE YEARS AND OTHER GROUNDS RAISED IN SOME OF THE YEARS ON ME RIT OF VARIOUS I.T.A.NO.105-109 /AHD/2009 C.O.NOS.272-276/AHD/2009 3 ADDITIONS DELETED BY LD. CIT(A), IT WAS SUBMITTED B Y THE LD. D.R. THAT THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IS VERY CRYPTIC AND HENCE, SHOU LD NOT BE SUSTAINED. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING TRIBUNAL DECISIONS: (A) DDIT VS MCKINSEY & CO. 09 TAXMAN.COM 298 (MUM. ) (B) JSL INDUSTRIES LTD. VS ACIT 09 TAXMAN.COM 324 (AHD.) 7. AS AGAINST THIS, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. A.R. TH AT THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IS NOT CRYPTIC BUT A SPEAKING ORDER AND HENC E, THIS ARGUMENT OF THE LD. D.R. IS DEVOID OF ANY MERIT AND, THEREFORE, SHO ULD BE REJECTED AND THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ON MERIT SHOULD BE CONFIRMED. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSE D THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORIT IES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE REGARDING DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS .11,48,380/-MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT IN ASSES SMENT YEAR 2001-02 WAS DECIDED BY LD. CIT(A) AS PER PARA 8 OF HIS ORDE R, WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW: 8. THE AFOREMENTIONED EXPLANATION/SUBMISSIONS HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY CONSIDERED AND THE RELEVANT DETAILS FILED PERUSED. THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE APPELLANT AND COPY OF HER BAL ANCE- SHEET/CAPITAL ACCOUNT HAVE ALSO BEEN PERUSED. IT IS SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT HAS GIVEN DETAILS/EXPLANATION (AS REPRODU CED IN PARA 7 OF THIS ORDER) IN RESPECT OF THE DEPOSIT OF IN THE BAN K ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT. THE DETAILS GIVEN HAVE NOT BEEN CONTROVE RTED IN THE REMAND REPORT OF THE A.O. THUS ON. CONSIDERATION OF THE AFOREMENTIONED DETAILS/EXPLANATION ON RECORD, THE A DDITION OF RS.L1,48,3807- IS NOT FOUND TO BE SUSTAINABLE, AND IS THEREFORE DELETED. THE RELATED GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 9. FROM THE ABOVE PARA OF THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), IT IS SEEN THAT THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IS NOT AT ALL A SPEAKING AND RE ASONED ORDER AND HENCE, AS PER TWO TRIBUNAL DECISIONS CITED BY LD. D.R., SU CH AN ORDER OF LD. I.T.A.NO.105-109 /AHD/2009 C.O.NOS.272-276/AHD/2009 4 CIT(A) CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. IN OTHER YEARS ALSO, T HE ORDERS PASSED BY LD . CIT(A) ARE SIMILAR AND HENCE, IN ALL THE FIVE YEA RS, VARIOUS ADDITIONS DELETED BY LD. CIT(A) ON THE BASIS OF SUCH A CRYPTI C ORDER CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THESE TWO TRIBUN AL DECISIONS CITED BY THE LD. D.R., WE HOLD THAT THE MATTER SHOULD GO BAC K TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) IN ALL THE FIVE YEARS FOR A FRESH DECISION B Y WAY OF A SPEAKING AND REASONED ORDER AND HENCE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IN ALL THE 5 YEARS ON MERIT OF VARIOUS ADDITIONS DELETED BY HI M AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO HIS FILE FOR A FRESH DECISION. HE S HOULD PASS A SPEAKING AND WELL REASONED ORDER AFTER ALLOWING ADEQUATE OPPORTU NITY OF BEING HEARD TO BOTH THE SIDES. 10. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE FIVE CROSS OBJECTIONS FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED WHEREAS ALL THE FIVE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 11. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED HEREINABOVE. SD./- SD./- (G. C. GUPTA) (A. K. GARODIA) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SP COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPLICANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) 5. THE DR, AHMEDABAD BY ORDER 6. THE GUARD FILE AR,ITAT,AHMEDABAD I.T.A.NO.105-109 /AHD/2009 C.O.NOS.272-276/AHD/2009 5 1. DATE OF DICTATION 21.11.2012 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 21.11.2012.OTHER MEMBER 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P .S./P.S. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 30/11/12 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S./P.S.30/11 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 30/1 1/2012 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK .. 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER . 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER. .