Meghana Kailash Gidwani, Mumbai V. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle -2, Sangli

ITA 1804/PUN/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0827 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-05-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 18-11-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Sl. No. ITA No. Name of Appellant Name of Respondent Asst. Year 1-3 1790/PUN/2019 1791/PUN/2019 1792/PUN/2019 Amit Kanhaiyalal Gidwani, City Survey No.341, Laxmi Bungalow, Revenue Colony, South Shivajinagar, Sangli- 416416. PAN : AEFPG7955P ACIT, Circle-1, Sangli 2006-07 2009-10 2010-11 4-5 1793/PUN/2019 1795/PUN/2019 Kailash Kanhaiyalal Gidwani, City Survey No.341, Laxmi Bungalow, Revenue Colony, South Shivajinagar, Sangli- 416416. PAN : ADGPG5025J ACIT, Circle-2, Sangli 2005-06 2007-08 5-9 1796/PUN/2019 1797/PUN/2019 1798/PUN/2019 1799/PUN/2019 Kailash Kanhaiyalal Gidwani, L/h of Late Kanhaiyalal V. Gidwani, City Survey No.341, Laxmi Bungalow, Revenue Colony, South Shivajinagar, Sangli- 416416. PAN : AEUPG1656G ACIT, Circle-1, Sangli 2005-06 2007-08 2008-09 2010-11 10 1801/PUN/2019 Kailash Kanhaiyalal Gidwani, L/h of Late Devi K. Gidwani, City Survey No.341, Laxmi Bungalow, Revenue Colony, South Shivajinagar, Sangli- 416416. PAN : AIMPG9942Q ACIT, Circle-2, Sangli 2007-08 ITA Nos.1790 to 1793/PUN/2019 ITA Nos.1795 to 1799/PUN/2019 ITA Nos.1801 & 1804/PUN/2019 2 11 1804/PUN/2019 Meghana Kailash Gidwani, City Survey No.341, Laxmi Bungalow, Revenue Colony, South Shivajinagar, Sangli- 416416. PAN : AEFPG7956Q ACIT, Circle-2, Sangli 2007-08 आदेश / ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JM: The instant batch of eleven cases pertains to five assessees herein i.e. S/Shri Amit Kanhaiyalal Gidwani, Kailash Kanhaiyalal Gidwani (self) as well as legal heir of Kanhaiyalal V. Gidwani and Smt. Devi K. Gidwani and Ms. Meghana Kailash Gidwani. Relevant details thereof; appeal wise, read as under :- Sr. No AY ITA No. Appellant Order appealed against Proceeding under Section 1-3 2006-07 2009-10 2010-11 1790/PUN/2019 1791/PUN/2019 1792/PUN/2019 Amit Kanhaiyalal Gidwani CIT(A)-1, Kolhapur order dated 28.08.2019 Case No.SLI/211/2013- 14, SLI/214/2013-14 & SLI/215/2013-14 143(3) r.ws. 147 4-5 2005-06 2007-08 1793/PUN/2019 1795/PUN/2019 Kailash Kanhaiyalal Gidwani CIT(A)-1, Kolhapur order dated 28.08.2019 Case No.SLI/239/13-14 & SLI/240/13-14 143(3) r.ws. 147 5-9 2005-06 2007-08 2008-09 2010-11 1796/PUN/2019 1797/PUN/2019 1798/PUN/2019 1799/PUN/2019 Kailash Kanhaiyalal Gidwani, L/h of Late Kanhaiyalal V. Gidwani CIT(A)-1, Kolhapur order dated 28.08.2019 Case No.SLI/225/13- 14, SLI/224/13-14 143(3) r.ws. 147 Assessee by : Shri Sunil Ganoo Revenue by : Shri Arvind Desai Date of hearing : 24.05.2022 Date of pronouncement : 30.05.2022 ITA Nos.1790 to 1793/PUN/2019 ITA Nos.1795 to 1799/PUN/2019 ITA Nos.1801 & 1804/PUN/2019 3 10 2007-08 1801/PUN/2019 Kailash Kanhaiyalal Gidwani, L/h of Late Devi K. Gidwani CIT(A)-1, Kolhapur order dated 28.08.2019 Case No.SLI/246/13-14 143(3) r.ws. 147 11 2007-08 1804/PUN/2019 Meghana Kailash Gidwani CIT(A)-1, Kolhapur order dated 28.08.2019 Case No.KOP/207/13- 14 143(3) r.ws. 147 Heard all assessees as well as the department through S/Shri Sunil Ganoo, AR and Arvind Desai, DR. 2. It emerges during the course of hearing that all these assessees challenge correctness of the Assessing Officer’s reopening action itself involving identical reasons recorded. Learned counsel invited my attention to the Assessing Officer’s reopening reasons recorded in ITA No.1790/PUN/2019 herein as follows :- “According to information gathered from informed sources, local enquiries and media reports, it has come to be known that Shri Kanhaiyalal Gidwani, owns three flats, one in his name and two in the names of his two sons - Kailash and Amit in the Adarsha Housing Society. Again, one flat is learned to be booked in the name of Shri Gajanan S. Koli, where apparently it is believed that Shri Sunil K. Gidwani, son of Kanhiyalal Gidwani, has lent finance to purchase the same. All payments for the same were apparently made through Gidwani Family's various bank accounts in which apparently cash amounts were deposited and the same were transferred into the accounts of Gidwani's wife, son and daughter-in-law in HDFC Bank at Worli. Thereafter the said amounts were apparently transferred into the account of M/s Jay Maharashtra CPL, HFDC Bank, Worli, in which Gidwani's sons are directors for making payments towards cost of the flats. Shri Amit Kanhiyalal Gidwani has been allotted flat in Adarsha CHS. He has paid an amount of Rs.56,08,878/- towards the above flat between the period Feb. 2003, to July, 2010., 2. During the year under consideration, he has invested Rs.8,53,841/- out of his own funds. Source of this investment are said to be as deposits/ unsecured loans from family members. The genuineness of these loans are not proved. Therefore, in view of the above, I have ITA Nos.1790 to 1793/PUN/2019 ITA Nos.1795 to 1799/PUN/2019 ITA Nos.1801 & 1804/PUN/2019 4 reasons to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961.” 3. Mr. Desai could hardly rebut the clinching fact that the Assessing Officer has nowhere recorded the so-called “information gathered from informed sources local enquiries and media reports” before setting in motion section 148/147 mechanism; as the case may be. Even all of his assessments are very much silent on this basic aspect. The impugned reopening reasons turn out to be very much vague once only. The same could hardly from tangible material in specific terms therefore. It is made clear that the factual position is very much identical in all these eleven cases wherein the Assessing Officer has not indicated the above local enquiries and media reports at all. Nor the assessing authority given the specific trail of deposits in issue. Hon’ble jurisdictional high court landmark decision in Hindustan Lever Limited vs. R.B. Wadkar, (2004) 268 ITR 332 (Bom.) holds that an Assessing Officer reopening reasons have to be very much specific without having any scope of addition, deletion or substitution even if some supportive material emerges at a latter stage. Case law (2017) 395 ITR 677 (Delhi) PCIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas (P.) Ltd. and (2017) 83 taxmann.com 348 (Delhi) PCIT vs. RMG Playing (I) Ltd. also holds that such ITA Nos.1790 to 1793/PUN/2019 ITA Nos.1795 to 1799/PUN/2019 ITA Nos.1801 & 1804/PUN/2019 5 reopening reasons involving total non-application of mind and not sustainable in law. I adopt the very reasoning mutatis mutandis herein-as-well to quash all reopening(s) involved in these eleven cases. I also deem it to make it clear that the Assessing Officer had not given the list of the corresponding bank accounts as well wherein any alleged cash sum(s) had been deposited. The assessees succeeds in their respective legal ground(s) to this effect therefore. All other pleadings on merits are rendered academic. 4. These assessee’s eleven appeals are allowed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order pronounced on this 30 th day of May, 2022. Sd/- (S. S. GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 30 th May, 2022. Sujeet (DOC) आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)-1, Kolhapur. 4. The Pr. CIT-1, Kolhapur. 5. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “SMC” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.