Shri Vijyakumar R.Naik, Ahmedabad V. The Income tax Officer,WArd-7(3), Ahmedabad

ITA 2019/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 89411 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-05-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 27-04-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 12-08-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ROOP CHAND
• Keywords: Business income

Judgement Text

1 ITA.NO. 2019/AHD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-2008 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH, AHM EDABAD (BEFORE SHRI N.S.SAINI ACCOUNT ANTMEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT JUDICIAL MEMBER.) ITA NO. 2019/AHD/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-2008 ) SHR VIJAYKUMAR R.NAIK, PROP. ANI AGENCIES, SF-3 AKAR COMPLEX, NAVJIVAN STADIUM ROAD, AHMEDABAD. .............APPELLANT [PAN: AAQPN 6050P ] VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 7(3), AHMEDABAD. .................RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI DHIREN SHAH. RESPONDENT BY: SHRI ROOPCHAND, SR.D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 27-04-2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13-5-2015 O R D E R PER SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. 2 ITA.NO. 2019/AHD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-2008 THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-VI, AHMEDABAD DATED 8-6-2011. 2. THE SOLE GROUND OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL IS THAT THE CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.12,35,100/- U/S. 68 OF THE ACT AND DIRECTING THE A.O. TO EXAMINE THE UTILI SATION OF MONEY WITHDRAWN BY CHEQUE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.4,35,650/-. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE A.O. OBSERV ED THAT FROM AIR INFORMATION, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEP OSITED CASH OF RS.20,72,200/- IN HIS SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT WITH HSB C AHMEDABAD BRANCH ON VARIOUS DATES. IN REPLY TO THE SHOW CAUSE ISSUE D BY THE A.O. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD GOLD AND PRODUCED PURCHASE BILLS OF GOLD ON THE SALE OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED CASH WHICH WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE ALSO F URNISHED LEDGER ACCOUNT OF SALE OF OLD GOLD OF RS.4,01,450/- AND CONFIRMATI ON FROM 8 PERSONS FOR RECEIPT OF GOLD AGAINST CASH. 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE EXPLANAT ION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.20,72,200/- WAS DEPOSITED FRO M CASH RECEIVED ON SALE OF GOLD AS PER THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE G OLD SOLD DURING THE YEAR IS ONLY OF RS.4,01,450/-. HENCE HE ALLOWED THE CREDIT FOR THE SAME AND MADE ADDITION FOR THE BALANCE OF RS.16,70,750/-. 5. ON APPEAL, CIT (A) HELD AS UNDER:- 2.3. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE ASSES SMENT ORDER AND APPELLANTS SUBMISSION. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT A PPELLANT DID NOT DISCLOSE HIS PERSONAL BANK ACCOUNT TO THE DEPARTMEN T. ONLY AFTER RECEIPT OF AIR INFORMATION WITH REGARD TO CASH DEPO SIT IN THIS ACCOUNT, ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED FOR THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPO SITS. APPELLANT AGREED THAT THIS BANK ACCOUNT IS NOT INCLUDED IN AU DIT SINCE NO BUSINESS RECEIPTS ARE DEPOSITED IN THIS ACCOUNT. APPELLANT S UBMITTED THAT SOURCE 3 ITA.NO. 2019/AHD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-2008 OF SUCH CASH DEPOSITS AS SALE OF GOLD ORNAMENTS, RECEIPT OF CASH LOANS, MONEY RECEIVED ON INHERITANCE AND DEPOSIT OF CASH WITHDRAWN FROM THE BANK THROUGH ATM OR CHEQUE. AS REGARDS SALE OF GOLD ORNAMENTS, ASSESSING OFFICER EXAMINED THE P ARTIES AND ON THE BASIS OF DETAILED EXAMINATION, ALLOWED PART RELIEF. FOR REMAINING PART, APPELLANT COULD NOT ESTABLISH THE SOURCE OF PURCHAS E AS WELL AS SALE. ACCORDINGLY THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF GOLD ORNAMENT IS CONFIRMED. AS REGARDS APPELLANTS CLAIM OF RECEIPT OF CASH LOA NS FROM VARIOUS PARTIES, THE SAME IS FOUND TO BE WITHOUT ANY BASIS. THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION S WERE NOT PROVED. FURTHER THE AMOUNT RECEIVED IS NOT ENTERED IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS THEREFORE THE EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT IN THIS REGARD IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. ACCORDINGLY THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSIT FOR WHICH SOURCE IS CLAIMED TO BE BORROWINGS IS CONFIRM ED. AS REGARDS APPELLANTS CLAIM OF SOURCE BYWAY OF INH ERITANCE, APPELLANT COULD NOT PROVE THIS CLAIM WITH CONTEMPOR ARY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. SIGNING OF CONFIRMATION BY ONESELF CANNOT BE TREATED AS EVIDENCE TO PROVE THIS. SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT TO T HIS EXTENT IS ALSO FOUND TO BE UNEXPLAINED HENCE ADDITION TO THIS EXTE NT IS ALSO CONFIRMED. AS REGARDS APPELLANTS CLAIM OF RE-DEPOSITING CASH WITHDRAWN FROM ATM OR THROUGH CHEQUES, THIS ASPECT HAS NOT BE EN EXAMINED OR LOOKED AT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE WITHDRAWAL FROM ATM IS FOR IMMEDIATE PURPOSES AND OF SMALL AMOUNTS THEREFORE I T CANNOT BE PRESUMED THAT THE SAME MONEY IS RE-DEPOSITED LATER. ACCORDINGLY THE APPELLANTS CLAIM OF DEPOSITING ATM WITHDRAWALS IS REJECTED AND ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. TO THIS EXTENT IS CONFIRM ED. 4 ITA.NO. 2019/AHD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-2008 HOWEVER CASH WITHDRAWN BY CHEQUE MAY HAVE POSSIBILI TY OF REDEPOSIT IN THE BANK THE ENTRIES IN THE CASH BOOK PREPARED SUBSEQUENTLY BY THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE USED AS VAL ID BASIS SINCE IT IS NOT PREPARED CONTEMPORARY AND DO NOT HAVE EVIDENTIA RY VALUE. AS PER APPELLANTS SUBMISSION MONEY WITHDRAWN BY CHEQUES I S RS.4,35,650/-. IF THIS MONEY IS NOT UTILISED IN MAKING INVESTMENTS OR EXPENDITURE, THE SAME CAN BE UTILISED IN RE-DEPOSITING IN THE BANK. TO THIS EXTENT, SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT CAN BE CONSIDERED AS EXPLAINED. ASS ESSING OFFICER IS THEREFORE DIRECTED TO EXAMINE IF THIS MONEY IS UTIL ISED IN MAKING INVESTMENTS OR EXPENDITURE. IF THE SAME IS NOT UTIL ISED THEN ADDITION TO THIS EXTENT WILL BE REDUCED. 6. THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED BEFORE U S THAT THE CIT (A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 16,70,750/- AND HE DIRECTED TO VERIFY THE CHEQUE WITHDRAWAL OF RS.4,35,650/- BE FORE DELEING THE SAME BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 7. WE FIND THAT THE A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY SPECIFIC ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A). THE ASSESSEE NEI THER FILED ANY COPY OF THE RELEVANT BANK STATEMENT NOR PRODUCED ANY DOCUMENT R ELATING TO ALLEGED LOAN. WE THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY GOOD REASON TO INTERF ERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE C.I.T.(A) WHICH IS HEREBY CONFIRMED AND THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON WEDNESDAY THE 13 TH MAY,2015. SD/- SD/- (KUL BHARAT) (N. S. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 5 ITA.NO. 2019/AHD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-2008 AHMEDABAD, THE 13TH DAY OF MAY, 2015 PATKI. COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPON DENT (3) COMMISSIONER (4) CIT(A) (5) DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ETC ASSISTANT/DEPUTY REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD PATKI 1. DATE OF DICTATION .11 & 12-05-15. (DICTATION-PAD PAGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER . 12-5-15 3. OTHER MEMBER 12-5-15 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P .S./P.S 12-5-15 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 13-5-2015 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S./P.S 13-5-2015 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 14-5 -2015 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10 DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER