Shri Karim U.Padarshi, SILVASSA V. The Income tax Officer,Vapi Ward-2, Vapi

ITA 1100/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0972 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 2 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 21-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 21-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DINESH SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: P B PARMAR
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA.NO.1100/AHD/2012 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2008-2009 SHRI KARIM U. PADARSHI PROP. OF CLASSIC FREIGHT & CARRIERS OPP: SAMARVASHI SCHOOL SILVASA 396 230. PAN : AKKPP 9355 M. VS THE ITO, VAPI WARD-2 VAPI. ! / (APPELLANT) '# ! / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P.B. PARMAR REVENUE BY : SHRI DINESH SINGH, SR.DR / DATE OF HEARING : 21/06/2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 01/08/2016 $%/ O R D E R ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), VALSAD DATED 27.1.2012 PASSED FOR THE AS STT.YEAR 2008-09. 2. SOLE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LD.CI T(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.14 LAKHS, WHICH WAS A DDED BY THE AO WITH THE AID OF SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 3. IT EMERGES OUT FROM THE RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED A SUM OF RS.14 LAKHS ON VARIOUS DATES STARTING FROM 7.12.200 7 UPTO 29.1.2008. WHEN HE WAS CONFRONTED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES OF DEPOSIT S, IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HAS AGRICULTURE LAND IN WHICH AGRI CULTURE ACTIVITIES WERE BEING CARRIED OUT BY HIS FATHER. HIS FATHER HAS GIVEN A SUM OF RS.14 LAKHS WHICH ITA NO.1100/AHD/2012 2 WAS DEPOSITED IN THIS BANK ACCOUNT. FOR BUTTRESSIN G HIS CONTENTIONS, THE ASSESSEE FILED AFFIDAVIT OF HIS FATHER. HE ALSO FI LED COPIES OF CERTAIN BILLS ETC. EXHIBITING SALE OF AGRICULTURE LAND. PLEA OF THE A SSESSEE DID NOT FIND FAVOUR AT THE END OF THE AO, AND APPEAL TO THE LD.CIT(A) DID NOT BRING ANY RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE LD.REPRESENTATIVES, I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. I FIND THAT EXACT SIZE OF AGRICU LTURE LAND COULD NOT BE BROUGHT ON RECORD. ACCORDING TO ME, IF THE ASSESSE E IS ABLE TO PRODUCE THE DETAILS OF AGRICULTURE LAND IN TERMS OF QUANTITY ON WHICH CROPS WERE SOWN, THEN, AT LEAST AN ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF AGRICULTURE I NCOME CAN BE WORKED OUT, WHICH CAN BE GIVEN A CREDIT TO THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE SOURCE OF THE ALLEGED DEPOSITS. CONSIDERING ALL THESE ASPECTS, I DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR RE-ADJUDICATION. T HE ASSESSEE WILL BE AT LIBERTY TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 1 ST AUGUST, 2016 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 01/08/2016