The ITO, Ward-7(2), Ahmedabad V. Shri Dharamrajbhai B.Wala, Ahmedabad

ITA 1638/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9185 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 7 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 09-03-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 27-07-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD A BENCH (BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA. NO: 1638/AHD/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) ITO, WARD-7(2), AHMEDABAD V/S SHRI DHARAMRAJBHAI B. WALA, A/3, PURSHOTTAM BUNGLOWS, NR. GURUDWARA, THALTEJ, AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: AAPPW2589P APPELLANT BY : SHRI SOMOGYAN PAL, SR. D.R . RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ANIL KSHATRIYA, A.R. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 09 -03-201 6 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11 -03-2016 PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. WITH THIS APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE CO RRECTNESS OF THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-XIV, AHMEDABAD DATED 29.05.2012 PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2007-08. ITA NO 1638 /AHD/2012 . A.Y. 2007-08 . 2 2. THE SOLE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE RELATES TO THE DE LETION OF THE ADDITION OF RS. 35.94 LACS MADE BY THE A.O U/S. 68 OF THE ACT. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS, THE A.O FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED CASH TOTALING TO RS. 35.94 LACS ON VARIOUS DATES DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATIO N. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS. ASSESS EE SUBMITTED HIS CASH BOOK REFLECTING CASH RECEIVED ON VARIOUS DATES AND HIS DEPOSITS MADE ACCORDINGLY. IT WAS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS EARNED NET AGRICULTURE INCOME AT RS. 1,95,300/-. THE ASSES SEE HAS ALSO EARNED GROSS RECEIPT FROM BUSINESS AT RS. 2,83,950/ -. IT WAS FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT THE MAIN SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT IS T HE MONEY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HIS MOTHER. AN AFFIDAVIT WAS F ILED IN SUPPORT OF THIS CLAIM. 4. THE REPLY/EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FIND FAVOUR WITH THE A.O WHO WAS OF THE FIRM BELIEF THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT OWNING ADEQUATE LAND FOR EARNING SUCH A HUGE AGRICULTURE I NCOME. THE INCOME SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. THE A.O F URTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED MONE Y FROM HIS MOTHER WHICH APPEARS TO BE IN CASH AND, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS GENUINE. THE A.O ACCORDINGLY ADDED RS. 35.94 LACS TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) A ND ONCE AGAIN, EXPLAINED THAT HE HAS RECEIVED THE MONEY FROM HIS M OTHER ON VARIOUS DATES. THE COPY OF THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSES SEE WAS TRANSMITTED TO THE A.O BY THE LD. CIT(A) FOR HIS CO MMENTS. A.O FURNISHED A REPORT VIDE HIS OFFICE LETTER DATED 02. 04.2012 WHEREIN HE ITA NO 1638 /AHD/2012 . A.Y. 2007-08 . 3 HAS ADMITTED THAT ASSESSEES MOTHER WAS EXAMINED ON OATH AND WHO HAS CONFIRMED OF HAVING GIVEN MONEY TO THE ASSESSEE . THE A.O ALSO ADMITTED THAT THE MOTHER HAS GIVEN DETAILS OF HER A GRICULTURAL LAND HOLDING. THE A.O ALSO ADMITTED THAT THE MOTHER OF A SSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED THE CONTENTS OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 6. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND THE SUBMISSIONS AND THE REPORT OF THE A.O, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS CONVINCED WITH THE SOURCE O F DEPOSITS AND DELETED THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE REVENUE IS BEFORE US. THE LD. D.R. STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE FIND INGS OF THE A.O. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED WHAT HAS BEEN S TATED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 7. WE HAVE GIVEN A THOUGHT CONSIDERATION TO THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS REMAND REPORT H AS CATEGORICALLY ACCEPTED THE FACTS THAT THE MOTHER OF THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN MONEY TO THE ASSESSEE ON VARIOUS DATES. THUS, IT CAN BE SAFE LY CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE IDENTITY OF THE LEND ER, GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS AND ALSO THE CAPACITY OF THE LENDE R. WE ALSO FIND THAT THERE WERE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCES TO ESTABLISH THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS REALIZED HIS DEBTS FROM HIS DEBTORS. THIS FACT HAS ALSO BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 8. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUCCESS FULLY DISCHARGED THE ONUS CAST UPON HIM U/S. 68 OF THE ACT. WE, THER EFORE, DO NOT FIND ITA NO 1638 /AHD/2012 . A.Y. 2007-08 . 4 ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD . CIT(A). APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 11 - 03 - 2016 SD/- SD/- (KUL BHARAT) (N. K. BILLAIYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD: TRUE COPY RAJESH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AHME DABAD