Hetal Patel, Beawar V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 187/AHD/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4401 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-01-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 27-12-2023
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 26-03-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRIASHOKKUMARGUPTA; THEACIT; CENTRALCIRCLE; AHMEDABAD.ITWASALSOAFACTTHATTHE

Judgement Text

आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण,अहमदाबादनयायपीी INTHEINCOMETAXAPPELLATETRIBUNAL, ‘’SMC’’BENCH,AHMEDABAD BEFORESHRIWASEEMAHMED,ACCOUNTANTMEMBER आयकरअपीलसं ./ITANo.187/AHD/2023 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt.Year:2013-2014 HetalPatel, 301,SuryaBuilding, ShreeViharbangurNagar, AndheriDeori, Beawar, Rajasthan. PAN:AUOPP6527H Vs. IncomeTaxOfficer, Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad. (Applicant)(Respondent) Assesseeby:ShriAshokkumarGupta,AR Revenueby:Ms.SaumyaPandeyJain,Sr.DR सुिवाईकीतारीख /DateofHearing:28/12/2023 घोरणाकीतारीख /DateofPronouncement:05/01/2024 आदेश /ORDER PERWASEEMAHMED,ACCOUNTANTMEMBER: ThecaptionedappealhasbeenfiledattheinstanceoftheAssesseeagainst theorderoftheNationalFacelessAppealCentre(NFAC),Delhi,arisinginthe matterofassessmentorderpassedunders.147oftheIncomeTaxAct,1961 (here-in-afterreferredtoas"theAct")relevanttotheAssessmentYear2013-2014. 2.Theassesseehasraisedasmanyas9groundsofappeal.However,wefirst proceedtoadjudicatetheissueraisedbytheassesseeingroundNo.5raisedin thememoofappealwhichisreproducedasunder: AdditionmadeofRs.2,00,000/-bytreatingitasunexplainedMoney. TheLd.NFAC(Appeal)hasgrosslyerredinlaw&factsinconfirmingtheadditionofRs. 2,00,000/-treatingasunexplainedmoneywithoutbringinganycorroborativematerialon record,whilefullyexplainedbytheassesseeappellatebeforeauthoritiesbelow. ITAno.187/AHD/2023 Asstt.Year2013-2014 2 3.TheissueraisedbytheassesseeisthattheLd.CIT(A),erredinconfirming additionmadebytheAOforRs.2,00,000/-onaccountofunexplainedinvestment withoutanycorroborativematerials. 4.Brieflystatedfactsarethattheassesseeinthepresentcaseisanindividual whohasnotfiledtheincometaxreturn.Thus,theAOinitiatedtheproceedings u/s147oftheActonthereasoningthattheassesseehasmadeunaccounted investmentinthepropertydevelopedbyM/sDharmadevInfrastructureLtd.As pertheAO,thecompanynamelyM/sDharmadevInfrastructureLtd.hasadmitted beforethesettlementcommissionthatithasreceivedonmoneyagainstthe bookingreceivedfromvariouscustomerfortheproperty.AssuchM/sDharmadev InfrastructureLimitedhasofferedadditionalincomeofRs.88.45croresbeforethe settlementcommissionrepresentingthemoneyreceivedfromthecustomers.It wasfoundoutbytheAOthatthenameoftheassesseealsoappearedinthe documentswhohaspaidonmoneyforbookingtheproperty.Accordingly,theAO madetheadditionofRs.2,00,000/-u/s69AoftheAct. 5.AggrievedassesseepreferredanappealtotheLd.CIT(A)whoconfirmed theorderoftheAObyobservingasunder: 5.TheabovereplyoftheAppellanthasbeencarefullyexaminedandconsideredindetail. FurthersubmissionoftheAppellantuploadedon05/12/2022hasalsobeenexaminedand considered.Fromthecarefulexaminationofthefactsintheassessmentorder,itcanbe seenthattheappellantdidnotfileanyincometaxreturnsduringtherelevantassessment year.There-assessmentproceedings,inthiscasewereinitiatedonaccountofinformation receivedfromACIT,Centralcircle,Ahmedabadthattheappellanthadpaidanamountof Rs.2,00,000/-incash,forthepurchaseofpropertytoanentitynamedM/sDharmadev InfrastructureLimited,whichwasacompanyinthegroupnamelyM/sDharmadevGroup, againstwhichSearchandseizureproceedingswereinitiatedundersection132ofthe IncomeTaxAct,1961,on15/10/2013.Onthebasisofthesesearchproceedings, informationwasrevealedfromdocuments,inrespectofcertainpersonsandentitieswho hadpaidamountsincash,forbookingproperties.Theappellantwasoneofsuchpersons whohadpaidRs.2,00,000/-,incashforbookingtheproperty. 6.Theaboveinformationwasanalyzedandpassedontotheassessingofficerofthe appellant,bytheACIT,CentralCircle-2(4),Ahmedabad.Itwasalsoafactthatthe appellanthadnotfiledanyincometaxreturnduringtherelevantassessmentyear. Therefore,thereopeningoftheassessmentundersection147/148waslegallyvalidre- openingandtheproceedingswereasperthelawandAct.Subsequently,theassessing ITAno.187/AHD/2023 Asstt.Year2013-2014 3 officerinassessmentorderdated24/9/2021,hasanalyzedthefactsofthecaseindetail andhasreachedtheconclusionthattheappellanthadpaidanamountofRs.2,00,000/-, incash,whichGUPDVOCATEwasunaccountedinvestmentasnotreturnwasfiledbythe appellant.Therefore,theadditionofRs.2,00,000/-wasmadetothenilincomeofthe assessee.Theorderoftheassessingofficerisreasonableandcorrect.TheorderoftheAO isconfirmed.Appealoftheappellantisdismissed. 6.BeingaggrievedbytheorderoftheLd.CIT(A),theassesseeisinappeal beforeme. 7.TheLd.ARbeforemefiledapaperbookrunningfrompages1to54and filedthewrittensubmissionrunningfrompages1to38.TheLd.ARalongwith othercontentionssubmittedthattheTribunalinidenticalfactsandcircumstances bearingITANo.62/Ahd/2020inthecaseofUrmilabenBharatbhusanAgarwalvs. ITO,Ward-5(3)(5),Ahmedabad,dated23/09/2022hasdecidedtheissueinfavour oftheassesee. 8.Ontheotherhand,theLd.DRcontendedthattheassesseehasbeennon- cooperativeinmakingrepliesduringtheassessmentproceedings.Itwasfurther submittedthattheassesseehasmadeaninvestmentinthepropertydevelopedby DharmadevInfrastructureLimitedwhichwasfoundindulgedinreceiving unaccountedmoney.Therefore,itbecameevidentthattheassesseehasmade investmentincashwhichisbasedonseizedmaterials.TheLd.DRvehemently supportedtheorderoftheauthoritiesbelow. 9.Ihaveheardtherivalcontentionsofboththepartiesandperusedthe materialsavailableonrecord.Attheoutset,Ifindthatinanidenticalissueinthe caseofUrmilabenBharatbhushanAgarwalbearingITANo.62/Ahd/2020,this Tribunalhasdecidedtheissueinfavouroftheassesseevideorderdated 23/09/2022byobservingasunder: "7.Ihaveheardboththepartiesandperusedalltherelevantmaterialavailableonrecord. Itispertinenttonotethattheassesseehasgivenallthedetailsrelatedtopurchaseof propertyintheprojectofSwaminarayanParkandpaidRs.8,65,237/-incashtowards bookingamount.Thisfactwasneverdisputed,buttheAssessingOfficeranalysedthe sameasassessee'sinvestmentinthepropertyinrespectofonmoneytoDharmadev InfrastructureLimited.Infact,thedetailsofcashpaymentwereestablishedbythe ITAno.187/AHD/2023 Asstt.Year2013-2014 4 assesseeasthesaidamountwasnotpaidincashbutthroughproperchannel.Mere admissiononthepartofShriUmangHiralalThakkarbeforetheSettlementCommission, theassesseecannotbedeniedthecrossexaminationofthesaidparty.Thus,the AssessingOfficerwasnotrightinmakingadditiononthatbasis.Therefore,appealofthe assesseeisallowed. 8.Intheresult,appealfiledbytheassesseeisallowed." 9.1Beforeme,nomaterialhasbeenplacedonrecordbytherevenue demonstratinganycontrarydecisionoftheHigherJudicialAuthorities.Beforeme, revenuehasnotplacedanymaterialonrecordtopointoutanydistinguishing featureinthefactsofthecasefortheyearunderconsiderationandthatofthe casecitedabove.Thus,respectfullyfollowingtheabovefinding,Iherebysetaside thefindingoftheld.CIT-AanddirecttheAOtodeletetheadditionmadebyhim. Hence,thegroundofappealoftheassesseeisherebyallowed. 9.2AsIhavedecidedtheissueonmeritinfavoroftheassessee,Idon’tfind anyreasontodealwiththeothergroundsofappealoftheassessee.Assuch, othergroundsofappealoftheassesseeareherebydismissedasinfructuous. 10.Intheresult,theappealfiledbytheassesseeisherebypartlyallowed. OrderpronouncedintheCourton05/01/2023atAhmedabad. Sd/-Sd/-/-/- (TRSENTHILKUMAR)(WASEEMAHMED) JUDICIALMEMBERACCOUNTANTMEMBER (TrueCopy) Ahmedabad;Dated05/01/2023 Manish