Shri Mehul Jagdishchandra Patel, Anand V. The Dy. CIT, Anand Circle, Anand

ITA 1264/AHD/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4108 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 24-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANTOSH KANNAN
• Assessee Lawyers: MEHUL K PATEL

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, B BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1262, 1263 AND 1264/AHD/2017 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2007-08, 2008-09 AND 2009-10 MEHUL JAGDISHCHANDRA PATEL 1, ANUPAM BUNGALOW NR. PATEL PRESS, NANA BAZAR PAN : ADRPP 6875 A VS. DCIT, ANAND CIRCLE ANAND. ( APPLICANT ) ( RESPONENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MEHUL K. PATEL, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI SANTOSH KANNAN, SR.DR / DATE OF HEARING : 14/02/2019 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 15 /02/2019 +,/ O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: PRESENT THREE APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE LD.CIT(A) DATED 27.2.2007 PA SSED FOR THE ASSTT.YEARS 207-08, 2008-09 AND 2009-10 RESPECTIVELY. 2. ISSUES AGITATED IN ALL THESE APPEALS ARE INTERCO NNECTED WITH EACH OTHER, AND THEREFORE, DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO DISPOSE OF TH EM BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 3. IN THE FIRST COMMON GROUND, THE ASSESSEE HAS PLE ADED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.68,891/- , 17,730/- AND RS.44,002/-. THESE ADDITIONS WERE MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF U NEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS IN THE ASSTT.YEARS 20 07-08 TO 2009-10 RESPECTIVELY. ITA NO.1262/AHD/2017 AND 2 OTHERS 2 4. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE LD.REPRESENTATIVES, W E HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MA DE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS ON VARIOUS DATES. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS CALLE D FOR REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO. IN THE ASSTT.YEAR 2007-08 ONE OF THE AMOUN TS DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS OF RS.40,000/-. WHILE EXPLAINING THES E DEPOSITS, IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SUM WITHDRAWN ON 22.8.2006 WAS DEPOSITED ON 23.8.2006. ON THIS EXPLANATION, A REM AND REPORT WAS CALLED FOR FROM THE AO. THE COMMENTS MADE BY THE AO HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BY THE LD.CIT(A) ON PAGE NOS.9 TO 11 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDE R. AT SERIAL NO.14, THE LD.AO HAS GIVEN THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: 14. 40,000 CASH OF RS.30,000 WITHDRAWN ON 22- 8-2006 DEPOSITED ON 23-8-2006 THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY EXPLANATION OF BALANCE OF RS.10,000/-. THE SAME IS REQUIRED TO BE UPHOLD. 5. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT T HE AO HIMSELF ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF RS .30,000/- AND DOUBTED ONLY RS.10,000/-. CREDIT OF THIS RS.30,000/- HAS NOT BE EN GIVEN BY THE LD.CIT(A) WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL. THE LD.DR WAS UNABLE TO CONTROVERT THIS CONTENTION OF THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 6. ON DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRC UMSTANCES, WE ARE SATISFIED THAT OUT OF ADDITION CONFIRMED AT RS.68,8 91/-, RS.30,000/- DESERVES TO BE DELETED AND ADDITION OF RS.28,891/- DESERVES TO BE CONFIRMED, BECAUSE THERE IS NO EXPLANATION BY THE ASSESSEE ABOUT THE S OURCE OF FUNDS, OUT OF WHICH THESE DEPOSITS COULD BE MADE. SIMILARLY, WITH REGA RD TO OTHER CASH CREDITS IN REMAINING TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE CONCERNED, THE A SSESSEE FAILED TO GIVE ANY EXPLANATION, HENCE, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY CONFI RMED THESE ADDITIONS. ITA NO.1262/AHD/2017 AND 2 OTHERS 3 7. GROUND NO.2: IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL, THE GRIE VANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDI TION OF RS.1,97,350/-, RS.3,73,260/- AND RS.3,73,260/- IN THE ASSESSMENT Y EARS 2007-08 TO 2009-10 RESPECTIVELY. 8. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S MADE PAYMENT TOWARDS LIC PREMIUM AMOUNTING TO RS.11,82,360/- IN THE ASST T.YEARS 2007-08, 2008- 09 AND 2009-10 RESPECTIVELY. WHEN SOURCE OF THESE PAYMENTS WAS ASKED FROM THE ASSESSEE, THEN IT WAS CONTENDED THAT HE HAS AGR ICULTURE INCOME, OUT OF WHICH, SUCH PAYMENT WAS PAID. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS AC CEPTED AGRICULTURE INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS.9,85,000/- IN THE ASSTT. YEAR 2007-08, RS.8,09,100/- IN THE ASSTT.YEAR 2008-09 AND RS.8,09,100/- IN THE ASSTT.YEAR 2009-10. WHEN THESE AGRICULTURE INCOMES WERE DEBITED FROM TH E INSURANCE PREMIUM PAID BY THE ASSESSEE, THEN BALANCE WORKED OUT TO RS .1,97,360/-, RS.3,73,260/- AND RS.3,73,260/- IN THE ASSTT.YEAR 2008-09 TO 2009 -10 RESPECTIVELY. ALL THESE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE LD.CIT(A ) ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO GIVE ANY EXPLANATION ABOUT SOURC ES OF THE FUNDS OUT OF WHICH LIC PREMIUM COULD BE PAID. 9. ON DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE FACTS, WE DO N OT FIND ANY ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), BECAUSE THERE IS NO EXPLANA TION AVAILABLE AT THE END OF THE ASSESSEE, OUT OF WHICH HE HAS MADE PAYMENT FOR THE LIC PREMIUM. THE SOURCES OF AGRICULTURE INCOME HAS ALREADY BEEN ACCE PTED BY THE LD.CIT(A) AS WELL AS THE AO IN THE REMAND REPORT. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IN ALL THESE THREE YEARS. TH EY ARE REJECTED. 10. IN THE NEXT GROUND, COMMON GRIEVANCE OF THE ASS ESSEE IS THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.3. 00 LAKHS IN EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR, WHICH WAS ADDED BY THE AO ON ACCOU NT OF LOW HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWAL OF RS.1,09,908/-, RS.67,157/- AND RS.4,1 6,305/-. APART FROM THAT ITA NO.1262/AHD/2017 AND 2 OTHERS 4 HE LIVES IN A JOINT FAMILY AND OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS HAVE ALSO SHOWN WITHDRAWAL. TOTAL HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWAL SHOWN AT RS .2,47,013/-, RS.1,28,562/- AND RS.4,77,588/- IN THE ASSTT.YEARS 2007-08 TO 2009-10 RESPECTIVELY. 11. ON DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIR CUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD.AO HAS ESTIMATED THE HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES, OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE, AFTER LOOKING INTO S URROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES, AND REPUTATION OF THE ASSESSEE. IF AN ASSESSEE CAN MAKE PAYMENT OF RS.11,82,000/- TOWARDS LIC PREMIUM IN ONE ASSESSMEN T YEARS, THEN IT COULD BE EASILY IMAGINED THAT HIS HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES COUL D NOT BE MET BY RS.67,157/-. THE HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWAL SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ON THE LOWER SIDE, WHICH HAS BEEN RIGHTLY APPRECIATED AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD.CIT(A). IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. IT IS REJECTED. 12. IN THE ASSTT.YEAR 2008-09 AND 2009-10, THE ASSE SSEE HAS ONE MORE GROUND, WHEREIN IT IS PLEADED THAT AN ADDITION OF R S.1,80,900/- AND 1,41,400/- WAS MADE BY NOT ACCEPTING THE CLAIM OF AGRICULTURE INCOME. THIS AMOUNT WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE FOR MEETING HOUSEHOLD E XPENSES. THEREFORE, A SET OFF OR TELESCOPIC BENEFIT BE GIVEN. AFTER LOOKING INTO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO GIVE ANY TELESCOPIC BENEFIT. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT HOUSEHOLD EX PENSES IN THE ASSTT.YEAR 2008- 09 HAS BEEN SHOWN AT RS.1,28,562/-, OUT OF WHICH, T HE ASSESSEES CONTRIBUTION IS RS.67,157/- ONLY. HE HAS FILED A RETURN OF INCO ME IN THIS YEAR DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.36,90,580/-. A PERSON EARNING A N INCOME OF ROUGHLY RS.37 LAKHS COULD NOT BE EXPECTED TO INCUR TOWARDS HOUSEH OLD EXPENSES AT RS.67,157/- ONLY. CONSIDERING THIS PECULIAR FACT, WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO ITA NO.1262/AHD/2017 AND 2 OTHERS 5 GIVE ANY TELESCOPIC BENEFIT. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS REJECTED IN BOTH THE YEARS. 13. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FOR THE ASSTT.YEAR 2007-0 8 IS PARTLY ALLOWED; WHEREAS OTHER APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 15 TH FEBRUARY, 2019 AT AHMEDABAD. S D / - (AMARJIT SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER S D / - (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 15/02/2019