The ITO, Ward-5(1), Baroda V. Shri Thakorbhai M.Patel, Baroda

ITA 1268/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0613 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 03-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R P MAURYA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Additional evidence

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO . 1268 /AHD/201 3 A SSESSMENT Y EAR: 20 0 9 - 10 PAGE 1 OF 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH, SMC , AHMEDABAD [CORAM: PRAMOD KUMAR AM] I.T.A. NO. 1268 /AHD/ 20 1 3 ASSESSMENT Y EAR : 20 0 9 - 10 INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD 5 ( 1 ), BARODA. ....... ............ . APPELLANT VS . THAKORBHAI M. PATEL , . ...... . ... . RESPONDENT D - 85, MAHALAXMI PARK, NEAR OLD JAKAT NAKA, WAGHODIA ROAD, BARODA 390 019. [ PAN: ACZPP 4029 K ] APPEARANCES BY: R.P. MAURYA , FOR THE APPELLANT NONE , FOR THE RESPONDENT D ATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARI NG : 13.06.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : 09 .0 9 .2016 O R D E R 1. BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CHALLENGED CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 1 1 .0 2 .2013 , PASSED BY THE L EARNED CIT(A), FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 0 9 - 1 0 , ON THE FOLLOWING GROUND S : - 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING ADDITION OF RS. 40,50,000/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNTS BY ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENC ES IN CLEAR CONTRAVENTION TO PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A OF IT RULES. 2. TO ADJUDICATE ON THIS APPEAL, ONLY A FEW MATERIAL FACTS NEED TO BE TAKEN NOTE OF. THIS CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS. DURING THE COURSE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS ON 21.12.20 11 THE ASSESSEE WAS SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED TO FURNISH DETAILS IN RESPECT OF SOURCE OF DEPOSITS OF RS.20,50,000/ - IN CANAR A BANK AND INVESTMENT OF I.T.A. NO . 1268 /AHD/201 3 A SSESSMENT Y EAR: 20 0 9 - 10 PAGE 2 OF 3 RS.6,00,000/ - IN SBI MUTUAL FUND. IT WAS ALSO NOTED THAT AN INTEREST OF RS.37, 346/ - WAS RECEIVED IN RESPECT OF ABOVE INVESTMENT. O N 26.12.2011 THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROCEEDED TO FRAME THE ASSESSMENT AND NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH THE ABOVE REQUISITION. IN EFFECT THUS THERE WAS A TIME GAP OF ONLY FIVE DAYS BETWEEN THE DATE OF ISSUANCE OF REQUIS ITION AND THE DATE OF PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ODER. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SO FRAMED , THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITIONS OF RS. 40,50,000/ - IN RESPECT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT REPRESENTING INVESTMENT OF RS.6,00,000/ - IN SBI MU T U A L FUND AND CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.20,50,000/ - IN CANARA BANK, AS ALSO ADDITION OF RS.38,700/ - IN RESPECT OF INTEREST AMOUNT. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND THE REQUISITE DETAILS WERE FULLY FURNISHED B EFORE THE LEARNED CIT ( A ). BASED O N THE EVIDENCES SO FILED, THE LEARNED CIT (A) DELETED THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS TO THE EXTENT OF DEPOSITS IN BANKS WERE CONCERNED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS AGGRIEVED TO THE LIMITED EXTENT OF VIOLATION OF RULE 46A, AS IS CLEARLY EVIDENT FROM THE GROUNDS OF APP EAL REPRODUCED IN THE EARLIER ORDER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS IN APPEAL BEFORE ME. 3 . I HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE APPLICABLE LEGAL POSITION . 4. I FIND THAT THE TIME GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS CLEARLY INADEQUATE SO FAR A S REQUISITIONING DETAILS OF SOURCES FOR DEPOSITS IN BANK WAS CONCERNED. AS I HAVE NOTED EARLIER , THERE WAS A TIME GAP OF ONLY FIVE DAYS BETWEEN THE DA TE OF REQUISITI ONING THE DETAILS AND THE DATE OF P A SSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES , ACTION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE CANNOT AT ALL TO BE FAULTED WITH. AS A MATTER OF FACT, T HE VERY ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PROCEEDI NG TO FRAME THE ASSESSMENT WITHIN FIVE DAYS OF REQUISITIONING THE DETAILS WAS IMPROPER AND CONSEQUE NTLY I.T.A. NO . 1268 /AHD/201 3 A SSESSMENT Y EAR: 20 0 9 - 10 PAGE 3 OF 3 HE COULD NOT HAVE MADE THE ADDITIONS IN RESPECT OF ITEM FOR WHICH THE DETAILS WERE REQUISITIONED . IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, I SEE NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A). I, THEREFORE , UPHOLD THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED CIT ( A ) AND DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE MATTER. 5 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 9 TH D AY OF SEPTEMBER, 2016. SD/ - PRAMOD KUMAR (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) DATED: THE 9 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER , 2016. PBN/* COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) DR (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD