The Assistant Commr. of Income Tax, Cen. Circle-1, RAJKOT-GUJARAT V. Shri Aniruddhsinh J. Solanki, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

ITA 193/RJT/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [NaN] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1685 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 8 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-02-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 02-06-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “RAJKOT” BENCH, RAJKOT [Conducted through E-Court at Ahmedabad] BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMEBR & SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMEBR आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 193/Rjt/2016 ( Assess ment Ye ar : 2006-07) As stt . Co mmi s si on er of In co me T ax Ce ntr al C ir cle -1 , R ajk ot ब म/ V s . Sh ri A nir u dd hs in h J. So la nk i Fla t No .2 , J yo t i Ap art me nt , Ni r mala Co nv ent R oa d, R aj kot यी ल सं./ ीआ आर सं./P A N / G IR N o . : A F Y P S 6 9 9 0 L (अपील Appellant) . . ( य / Respondent) अपील र स /Appellant by : Sh ri Ja me s Ku ri an, CI T. D. R. य क र स / Respondent by : Shri Rajiv Doshi, A.R. स क र D a t e o f H e a r i n g 02/02/2022 !"# क र /D a t e o f P r o n o u n c e m e n t 04/02/2022 ORDER PER MAHAVIR PRASAD, JM: The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the Revenue against the order of the Co mmissioner of Inco me Tax (Appeals)-1, Ra jkot (‘CIT(A) ’ in short) vide Appeal No. CIT( A)-I/R jt/0101/14-15, dated 28.03.2016 arising in the assessment order dated 24.03.2014 passed by the Assessing ITA No. 193/Rjt/2016 [ACIT vs. Shri Aniruddhsinh J. Solanki] AY 2006-07 - 2 - Officer ( AO) under s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act , 1961 (the Act) concerning AY. 2006-07. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue read as under: “ 1 . O n t h e f a c t s a n d i n t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h e c as e a n d i n l a w , t h e L d . C I T ( A ) h a s e r r e d i n l a w a n d / o r o n f a c t s i n d e l e t i n g a d d i t i o n o f R s . 5 , 8 8 , 4 3 , 8 0 6 / - o n a c c o u n t o f i n c o m e fr o m u n d i s c l o s e d s o u r c e s . 2 . O n t h e f a c t s a n d i n t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h e c a se a n d i n l a w , t h e C I T ( A ) o u g h t t o h a v e u p h e l d t h e o r d e r o f t h e A .O . ” 3. The facts of the case are that the case was reopened on the basis of an information that the assessee has 'during the relevant previous year dep osited cash in aggregate of Rs.5,88,43,806/- in his current A/c. No.015305002632 with ICICI Bank Ltd., Rajkot. With a view to verif y the quantum of cash de posits the AO called for bank statement fro m ICICI Bank Ltd. u/s.133(6) on perusal of which it was noticed that the assessee has deposited huge amount of cash in aggregate of Rs.5,88,43,806/- on various dates in his above bank account. During the course of assess ment proceedings the assessee in his statement recorded on oath as well as in response to the show cause notice submitted that the cash deposits in aggregate of Rs.5,88,43,806/- made in his A/c. No.015305002632 belongs to the Cera mic Industries/Tiles Manufacturing Companies of Morbi who are the clients of Shaileshbhai Marvania. It was also stated in his submission that Shri Shaileshbhai was pa ying hi m co mmission @ 0.025 per 1 lac. The AO has me ntioned in the assessment or der that while recording statement on oath the ITA No. 193/Rjt/2016 [ACIT vs. Shri Aniruddhsinh J. Solanki] AY 2006-07 - 3 - assessee has deposed that he was receiving commission: @ 0.25 per 1 lac whereas in his submission he stated that he was receiving co mmi ssion @ 0.025 per 1 lac and thus the contradictory stat e ment leads to believe that the intention of assessee is not bonafide. Therefore the AO was of the view that assessee has failed to explain the source of cash deposits made of Rs.5,88,43,806/- in his above-mentioned bank account. As such the said deposits were treated as assessee's inco me fro m undisclosed sources and added back to the total income. 4. Thereafter , the assessee preferred first statutory a ppeal before the learned CIT( A) who partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Now, the Revenue is before us. 6. We have gone through the relevant records and impugned order. The question before us is whether cash depositing in aggregate a mount of Rs.5,88,43,806/- made in his A/c. No.015305002632 belongs to the Cera mic Industries/Tiles Manufacturing Co mpanies of Morbi who are the clients of Shaileshbhai Marvania or not. In this case, assessee is working as a shroff and as per CIT(A) it is not a disputed fact. The shroff acts as a channel between two parties. It is apparent fro m the bank account in question that the cash were deposited and withdrawn fro m ti me to ti me . During the proceedings, the assessee recorded his statement and categorically exp lained the nature of transaction that he is getting a commission at Rs.0.25 paise on transaction of Rs. one lakh. In our considered opinion, ITA No. 193/Rjt/2016 [ACIT vs. Shri Aniruddhsinh J. Solanki] AY 2006-07 - 4 - in such a case, all deposits in the bank account cannot be treated as income of the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, the learned AO c a me to know that assessee is working as shroff which means commission agent. After going through the bank state ment, it was revealed that cash deposited and withdrawals were made regularl y during the year under consideration. We do not find any a mbiguity in the order passed by the learned CIT(A) and he has rightly directed the learned AO to compute the commi ssion income @ 0.25 paise per lakh deposited in the bank account. 7. In the result, the a ppeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (WASEEM AHMED) (MAHAVIR PRASAD) ACC OUNTANT MEMB ER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad: Dated 04/02/2022 True Copy S.K.SINHA आदेश े / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- $. र / Revenue 2. आ दक / Assessee '. सं(ं)* आयकर आय + / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आय + - अपील / CIT (A) .. / 0 1ीय 2 2 )*3 आयकर अपील य अ)*कर#3 अ45द ( द / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. 1 78 9 ल / Guard file. By order/आद श स 3 D e p u t y / A s s t t . R e g i s t r a r I T A T , R a j k o t This Order pronounced in Open Court on 04/02/2022