Shri Gautam D.Patel,HUF, Ahmedabad V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-9(4), Ahmedabad

ITA 1312/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9483 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 22-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 07-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANATOSH KARNANI
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained expenditure; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Corroborative evidences

Judgement Text

,, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA.NO.1312/AHD/2013 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2007-2008 SHRI GAUTAM D.PATEL HUF 28, MANAVMANDIR SOCIETY NILKATH, MAHADEV ROAD GHATLODIA, AHMEDABAD PAN: AADHG 9070 K VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-9(4) AHMEDABAD ! / ( APPELLANT ) '# ! / ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI GAURAV NAHTA , AR REVENUE BY : SHRI SANATOSH KARNANI , SR.DR / DATE OF HEARING : 22/02/2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 22/02/2016 / O R D E R THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ARISING OUT OF THE O RDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XV, AHMEDABAD, [CIT(A) IN SHORT] DATED 03.12.2012 PASSED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2 007-08. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL :- 1. THE LD.CIT APPEALS XV AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW A ND ON FACTS IN PASSING APPELLATE ORDER DATED 03/12/2012 F OR A.Y. 2007-08 IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT BY CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.200140/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S.68. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HA D FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME AT RS.99,480/- ON 30/03/2009 AND THE SAME I S ASSESSED AT RS.3,26,594/- FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. AS SESSEE IS A FABRICATOR AND ITA NO.1312 /AHD/2015 SHRI GAUTAM D.PATEL HUF VS. ITO ASST.YEAR - 2007-08 2 ALSO SHOWN INCOME FROM INTEREST. IT WAS NOTICED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO IN SHORT) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE LABOUR PAY MENT TO VARIOUS LABOURERS IN CASH. DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON VERIF ICATION OF VOUCHERS OF EXPENSES PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE AO NOTICED T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE LABOUR PAYMENT OF RS.2,00,140/- AND PAYMENT OF OTHER EXPENSES TOO. HOWEVER, AS PER CASH BOOK, CASH BALANCE AS ON 01/04 /2006 WAS SHOWN A SUM OF RS.9,813/- ONLY. AND AS PER BANK STATEMENT, NO CASH WITHDRAWAL WAS REFLECTED. THE AO HAD ISSUED SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY RS.2,00,140/- SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED BY TREATING THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE FROM INCOME FOR UNDISCLOSED SOURCE. IN RESPONSE THERETO, THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED COPY OF CASH BOOK EXTRACT AN D THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN TO HAVE DEBITED AMOUNTS RANGING FROM RS.15,000/- TO RS.19,500/- FROM 11 PERSONS. IN THE ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS, THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SAME WITH SUPPORTI NG EVIDENCE AND THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE . THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED LABOUR EXPENSES IN THE P&L ACCOUNT, BUT HE FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM BY ADDUCING ANY SUPPORTING E VIDENCE AND ALSO GENUINENESS OF THE CASH CREDIT FROM 11 (ELEVEN) PER SONS TAKEN IN CASH HAS NOT BEEN PRODUCED. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO TREATED THE SAM E AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), THE AO SUBMITTED ORIGINAL CONFIRMATION OF THE LOAN ACCOUNT AND COPY OF VOUCHERS OF THE LABOUR EXP ENSES AS AN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WHICH WAS RETURNED TO THE AO. AFTER REC EIVING THE REPORT FROM THE AO, THE LD.CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO. 4. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE LOAN CONFIRMATIONS AND THE VOUCHERS FOR LABOUR EXPENSES AS AN ADDITIONAL ITA NO.1312 /AHD/2015 SHRI GAUTAM D.PATEL HUF VS. ITO ASST.YEAR - 2007-08 3 EVIDENCE BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). THE LD.CIT(A) AS WE LL AS THE AO IN THE REMAND REPORT DID NOT APPRECIATE THE SAME AND DID N OT EXAMINE THE SAME. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD.SR.DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED T HE FACTS OF THE CASE. THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS SUBMITTED THE ORIGINAL CONFIRMATION OF THE LOAN ACCOUNTS AND ALSO THE VOUC HERS OF THE LABOUR EXPENSES WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN EXAMINED BY THE AO IN THE REMAND REPORT. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD.CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONF IRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO. IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE MATTER IS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF AO WHO WILL EXAMINE THE CONFIRMATIONS IN ORIGINAL SUBMITTED TO THE LD.CIT(A) AND ALSO THE VOUCHERS OF THE LABOUR EXPENSES AND DECIDE THE ISSU E DE NOVO, AFTER AFFORDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE . THUS, GROUND OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOS ES. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 22 ND FEBRUARY, 2016 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- ( B.P. JAIN ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 22/02/2016 .. ,.../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS. ITA NO.1312 /AHD/2015 SHRI GAUTAM D.PATEL HUF VS. ITO ASST.YEAR - 2007-08 4 &''()*)' / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ! '#$ $ % / CONCERNED CIT 4. $ $ % ( ) / THE CIT(A)-XV, AHMEDABAD 5. ()*'# , $ '# / DR, ITAT, 6. *+,- / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, ( //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION- 22.2.16 (DICTATION-PAD 6+PAGES A TTACHED WITH THIS FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 22.02.2016 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 ..22.2.16 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK .. : 22.2.16 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK :. 7. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER