Dr. Mahendra O. Shah, Baroda V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(3), Baroda

ITA 154/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8623 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 21-01-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DEEPAK SUTARIA
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

, .. , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD , , BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.154/AHD/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13) DR. MAHENDRA O SHAH 22, CHAROTAR SOCIETY OLD PADRA ROAD BARODA-390 022 / VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-192)(3) BARODA 390 007 # ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : ABWPS 4288 H ( #% / APPELLANT ) .. ( &#% / RESPONDENT ) #%' / APPELLANT BY : SHRI TUSHAR P. HEMANI, AR &#%(' / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI DEEPAK SUTARIA, SR.DR )*(+ / DATE OF HEARING 23/08/2017 ,-./(+ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 04/09/2017 / O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - AM: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-5, VADOD ARA [CIT(A) IN SHORT] DATED 21/10/2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2012-13. ITA NO.154/AHD/ 2016 DR. MAHENDRA O SHAH VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2012-13 - 2 - 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE C IT(A) TOWARDS ADDITION OF RS.3 LAKHS RECEIVED BY WAY OF UNSECURED LOAN FROM WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE ASSESSEE AN INDIVIDUAL FILED RETURN OF INCO ME FOR AY 2010-11 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.11,47,714/-. THE CASE WAS SUBJECTED TO SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) INTER ALIA OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS TO HAVE RECEIVED RS.3 LAKHS FROM HIS WIFE ON 03/05/201 1 WHICH WAS RETURNED TO HER ON 21/06/2011. SIMILARLY, A LOAN O F RS.75,000/- WAS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO HIS WIFE ON 14/12/2011 WHI CH WAS RETURNED BY HER ON 29/12/2011. THE AO SIMILARLY NOTICED RECEIP T OF OTHER LOANS OF RS.31,000/- FROM SISTER OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AO WA S OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT OFFERED SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION T OWARDS NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE CREDITS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE DURI NG THE YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO ADDED RS.4,51,000/- TO THE RETU RNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE AID OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. IN THE FIRST APPEAL, THE CIT(A) GRANTED PARTIAL RELIEF. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE CIT(A) IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. THE LD.AR FOR THE ASSESSEE MR.TUSHAR HEMANI SUBM ITTED AT THE OUTSET THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ADDITI ON OF RS.3 LAKHS ITA NO.154/AHD/ 2016 DR. MAHENDRA O SHAH VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2012-13 - 3 - RECEIVED AS LOAN FROM HIS WIFE. IT WAS SUBMITTED T HAT THE AFORESAID LOAN HAS BEEN RETURNED TO THE LENDER. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE TEMPORARY LOAN WAS OBTAINED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PURCHASE OF NEW CAR AND THE SAME WAS RETURNED AS SOON AS MONEY WAS RECEIVED FROM SALE OF OLD CAR. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE LENDER DR.RITA M.SHAH IS ASSESSE D TO TAX AND THE LOAN WAS RECEIVED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. THE LOAN WAS ALSO RETURNED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. A CONFIRMATION TOWARDS LO AN HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT THE AFORESAID TRANSACTION. IT WAS THEREFORE CONTENDED THAT ADDITION UNDER S.68 IS NOT WARRANTED WITHOUT CROSS- VERIFICATION FROM THE LENDER. 6. THE LD.DR ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED UPON THE ORDE RS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. WE NOTICE FROM THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHEREBY STAND TAKEN BY THE AO THAT THE AMOUNT WAS SOURCED FROM AS SESSEES WIFE WAS REITERATED AND EVIDENCE THEREOF IN THE FORM OF CONF IRMATION FROM HIS WIFE WAS ALSO PRODUCED. THE CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN ANY SP ECIFIC REASON FOR REJECTING THE EVIDENCE. THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN RECEIV ED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL AND HAS BEEN REPAID SIMILARLY. THIS BEING SO, THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IS FOUND TO BE SOMEWHAT PLA USIBLE WHEN SEEN IN THE BACKDROP OF INCOME PROFILE OF THE ASSESSEE AS W ELL AS THE SMALLNESS OF ITA NO.154/AHD/ 2016 DR. MAHENDRA O SHAH VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2012-13 - 4 - THE AMOUNT. THE BENEFIT OF DOUBT, IN OUR VIEW, REQ UIRES TO BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CROSS-VERIFICATION. ACCORDINGLY, AFORESAID ADDITION OF RS.3 LAKHS MADE UNDER S.68 OF THE ACT R EQUIRES TO BE DELETED. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 04/ 09 /2017 SD/- SD/- () ( ) (RAJPAL YADAV) ( PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 04/ 09 /2017 3..),.)../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS !'#$%&%# / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. #% / THE APPELLANT 2. &#% / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 456+ 7+ / CONCERNED CIT 4. 7+ ( ) / THE CIT(A)-5, VADODARA 5. 89:+)56 , 56/ , 4 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. :<* / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, &8++ //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD