Binaben Kimatrai Vasani, Ahmedabad V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(4), Ahmedabad

ITA 1782/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 94750 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-12-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 30-11-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 17-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VILAS V SHINDE
• Assessee Lawyers: S N DIVETIA

Judgement Text

, B IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.1782/AHD/2015 /BLOCK ASSTT. YEAR: 2008-2009 BINABEN KIMATRAI VASANI 44, CHANDRALOK SOCIETY CADILA ROAD GHODASAR AHMEDABAD 380 050. VS THE ITO, WARD - 6(4) AMBAWADI AHMEDABAD 38015. %& / (APPELLANT) '( %& / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.N. DIVETIA REVENUE BY : SHRI VILAS V. SHINDE, DR / DATE OF HEARING : 30/11/2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 01/12/2015 )*/ O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE OR DER OF THE CIT(A)-3, AHMEDABAD DATED 16.3.2015. 2. IN THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL, THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,43,299/-. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME ON 6.3.2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,3 3,870/-. THE RETURN OF THE ASSESSEE WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY, IT CAME TO THE NOTIC E OF THE AO THAT THE ITA NO.1782/AHD/2015 2 ASSESSEE HAS PAID ADVANCE OF RS.35.00 LAKHS FOR PUR CHASE OF PROPERTY SITUATED AT T.P.SCHEME NO.4, FINAL PLOT NO.54 & 55 WHICH WAS JOINTLY HELD BY SHRI NARENDRA A. THAKORE WITH HIS WIFE SMT. BHANUMATIBEN N. THAKORE. THE AO HAS RECORDED REASONS AND REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT. ON PERUSAL OF THE RECORD, IT REVEALED TO THE AO THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS INTRODUCED CAPITAL OF RS.2,43,299/-. THE AO HAS DI RECTED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE CAPITAL. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT SHE HAD RECEIVED ORNAMENTS FROM HER PARENTS WHICH WERE SOLD DURING THE YEAR AND THE CAPITAL INTRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS OUT OF THE ALLEGED SALE PROCEEDS. THE LD.AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTEN TION OF THE ASSESSEE AND MADE ADDITION OF RS.2,43,299/-. 4. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 4.2 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE C ASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT AND THE FI NDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECORDED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. A PERUSAL OF THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE A O IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SHOWS THAT IN ASSESSMENT YEARS -2001-02, 2007-08 AND 2008-09, THE APPELLANT HAD SHOWN THE VALUE OF GOLD AND SILVER ORNAMENTS WI TH HER AS THE SAME I.E. AT RS. 48,658/- AND HAD NOT SHOWN ANY CHA NGE IN THE QUANTITY OF GOLD AND SILVER HELD BY HER. THUS, THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM THAT THE CAPITAL INTRODUCED WAS ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF JEWELLERY HELD BY HER SINCE 2001 DID NOT TALLY WITH THE FIGUR ES SHOWN IN HER BALANCE SHEET. NO EXPLANATION REGARDING THE SAME HA S BEEN GIVEN DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS EITHER. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, I FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE A O AND T HE ADDITION OF RS. 2,43,299/- IS CONFIRMED. THE GROUND OF APPEAL N O 1 IS DISMISSED. 5. BEFORE US, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMI TTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED SALE BILL, NAME AND ADDRESS O F THE PURCHASER, DETAILS OF PAYMENTS RECEIVED AND COPY OF CASH BOOK/ BANK BOOK. THE EVIDENCES OF POSSESSION OF GOLD/COPY OF BALANCE SHE ET AND RETURN OF INCOME OF PREVIOUS YEAR I.E. A.Y.2007-08. SHRI DIV ETIA CONTENDED THAT ITA NO.1782/AHD/2015 3 THE LD.AO OUGHT TO HAVE VERIFIED THESE FACTS. DOUB TING THAT THERE IS A MISTAKE IN THE BALANCE SHEET, WHERE THE ASSESSEE FA ILED TO MAKE CHANGES IN THE QUANTITY OF GOLD, BUT THAT FACT SHOU LD NOT BE WEIGHED BY THE AO IN ISOLATION. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.D R RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 6. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTION AND GON E THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO INTRODUCTION OF CAPITAL IN THE ACCOUNTS. THE SOURCE OF THE CAPITAL HAS BEEN ALLEGED AS SALE OF JEWELLERY. THE LD.REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE PERUSED THE BALANCE SHEET FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH HER RETURNS FOR THE ASSTT.YEARS 2001-02, 2007-08 AND 2008-09. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHO WN THE VALUE OF THE GOLD AND SILVER ORNAMENTS WITH HER WITH SAME FI GURES I.E. RS.48,658/-. THERE SHOULD BE SOME REDUCTION ON ACC OUNT OF SALE OF JEWELLERY BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS IS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AT HER OWN WILL. WHETHER IT WAS A MISTAKE OR NOT, IT OUGHT TO BE PROVED BY THE ASSESSEE. WHEN WE WEIGH THE STATEMENT OF THE CAPIT AL BALANCE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH HER RETURN CONSISTENTLY FROM THE ASSTT.YEAR 2001-02, VIS--VIS THE ALLEGED EXPLANATION OF THE S ALE OF JEWELLERY, WHEREBY THE SALE PROCEEDS RECEIVED IN CASH, IN OUR OPINION, THE SCALE WOULD TILT IN FAVOUR OF THE AO FOR DOUBTING THE VER Y TRANSACTION OF THE ASSESSEE. WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE CONTENTI ON OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 7. THE NEXT GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE L D.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AT RS.78,000/-. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS RECORDED THE FOLLOW ING FINDINGS ON THIS ISSUE: 5.2 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE C ASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT AND THE FI NDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECORDED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT IS SEEN ITA NO.1782/AHD/2015 4 FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY-THE APPELLANT THAT THE APPELLANT HAS MADE WITHDRAWALS O N ACCOUNT OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES OF ONLY RS. 18,000/- DURING THE YEAR WHICH WORKS OUT TO RS. 1,500/- P.M. EVEN CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT THIS AMOUNT APPEARS TO BE UNR EASONABLY LOW. CONSIDERING THE ENTIRETY OF THE FACTS, THE TOT AL HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWALS MADE BY THE APPELLANT IS ESTIMATED AT R S. 10,000/- I.E. RS.1,20,000/- FOR THE YEAR. THE AO IS DIRECTE D TO GIVE RELIEF ACCORDINGLY. THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 2 IS PARTLY A LLOWED. 8. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIV ES, WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD AND FIND THAT THE FAMILY OF THE ASSESSEE CONSISTS OF FOUR MEMBERS. THE AO HAS ESTIMATED THE HOUSEHOLD E XPENSES OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF HIS KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE ST ATUS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE AREA IN WHICH SHE HAS BEEN RESIDING. THE L D.CIT(A) HAS FURTHER REDUCED THE ESTIMATION OF THE HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES SU BSTANTIALLY. WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD, WE DO N OT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE DISCRETION EXERCISED BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ESTIMATING THE HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALSO REJECTED. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 1 ST DECEMBER, 2015 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 01/12/2015