Leena Trivedi, Ahmedabad V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3), Ahmedabad

ITA 1958/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1878 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 06-04-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 27-06-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G C DAXINI
• Assessee Lawyers: HARSHADBHAI THAKKAR
• Keywords: Unexplained investment

Judgement Text

, C IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA.NO.1958/AHD/2014 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2009-10 LEENA TRIVEDI 4, SAMARTHYA BUNGALOWS OPP: VRUNDAVAN BUNGALOWS VIBHAG-III THALTEJ, SILAJ ROAD AHMEDBAAD 380 058. VS ITO, WARD - 6(3) AHMEDABAD. ! / (APPELLANT) '# ! / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI HARSHADBHAI THAKKAR REVENUE BY : SHRI G.C.DAXINI, SR.DR / DATE OF HEARING : 06/04/2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 07/04/2016 $%/ O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE ORD ER OF THE LD.CIT(A)-XI, DATED 3.3.2014 PASSED FOR THE ASSTT.Y EAR 2009-10. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN ARE NOT IN CONSONANCE WITH THE RULE 8 OF THE INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963 - T HEY ARE DESCRIPTIVE AND ARGUMENTATIVE IN NATURE. IN BRIEF THE GRIEVANCE O F THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF R S.20.00 LAKHS WHICH WAS ADDED BY THE AO WITH THE AID OF SECTION 69. ITA NO.1958/AHD/2014 2 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME ON 26.5.2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.3, 25,360/-. THIS RETURN WAS REVISED ON 22.2.2010 AND REVISED TOTAL INCOME WAS S HOWN AT RS.1,88,770/-. THE LD.AO HAS OBSERVED THAT INFORMATION HAS BEEN RE CEIVED FROM ANNUAL INFORMATION REPORT WING EXHIBITING THE FACT THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED A PROPERTY FOR CONSIDERATION OF RS.60.00 LAKHS. SHE WAS HAVING 1/3 RD SHARES IN THE PROPERTY. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE S OURCE OF ACQUISITION OF THIS PROPERTY. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO HAS MADE ADDITION OF RS.20.00 LAKHS. 4. ON APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT THOUG H HER NAME WAS THERE IN THE PURCHASE DEED BUT PAYMENT WAS MADE BY HER HU SBAND AND HER MOTHER- IN-LAW. SHE SUBMITTED DETAILS OF CHEQUE GIVEN BY T HEM FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS REJECTED THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THESE DETAILS WERE NOT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO . BEFORE US, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED ON RECORD COPY OF BANK STATEMENTS AND DETAILS OF CHEQUE PAID BY HER HUSBAND AND MOTHER-IN-LAW. SHE CONTENDED THAT IN VIEW OF THE PAYMENT, IT IS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THA T NO UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT WAS MADE BY HER. 5. ON DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTAN CES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS INFORMATION REQUIRES TO BE CROSS-VERIFIED WHICH CAN BE DONE AT THE LEVEL OF THE AO. FROM THE COPY OF THE CIT(A)S ORD ER PASSED IN THE CASE OF HER HUSBAND ON 24.2.2014 IN THE ASSTT.YEAR 1999-200 0, IT IS SPECIFICALLY NOT DISCERNIBLE WHETHER THIS VERY PROPERTY WAS PURCHASE D BY HIM, WHERE THE ASSESSEE IS A CO-OWNER. SIMILARLY THE DETAILS OF C HEQUE PAYMENTS AND THE CORRELATION WITH THE SALE DEED, WHICH ARE IN GUJARA TI, ARE REQUIRED TO BE RECONCILED AT THE LEVEL OF THE AO. THEREFORE, WE S ET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR RE -ADJUDICATION. ITA NO.1958/AHD/2014 3 7. THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY US WILL NOT IMPAIR OR I NJURE THE CASE OF THE AO AND WILL NOT CAUSE ANY PREJUDICE TO THE DEFE NCE/EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 7 TH APRIL, 2016 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- ( N.K. BILLAIYA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER