Shri Gajendrasinh Jaysinh Raj, Bharuch V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Bharuch

ITA 2192/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8683 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 31-07-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD A BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE, SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 2192/AHD/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11) SHRI GAJENDRASINH JAYSINH RAJ 46, RANG VARSH SOCIETY, LINK ROAD, BHARUCH - 392001 APPELLANT VS. ITO, WARD-2, BHARUCH RESPONDENT PAN: AEKPR5349M /BY ASSESSEE : URVASHI SHODHAN, A.R. /BY REVENUE : SHRI K. MADHUSUDAN, SR. DR. /DATE OF HEARING : 26.07.2017 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.08.2017 ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 ARISES AGAINST THE CIT(A)-V, BARODAS ORDER DATED 03.06.2014, IN CASE NO. CAB/(A) V-176/13- 14, IN PROCEEDINGS U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX AC T, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT. 2. THE ASSESSEES FIRST SUBSTANTIVE GROUND SEEKS TO CHALLENGE BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ACTION INVOKING SECTION 69A ADDI TION OF RS.4,67,500/- AS DEPOSITED IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IN CASH. THE ASS ESSEE INDIVIDUAL MAINLY DERIVES COMMISSION INCOME FROM M/S. AMWAY INDIA ENT ERPRISES PVT. LTD. ITA NO. 2192/AHD/14 (SHRI GAJENDRASINH J. RAJ VS. ITO) A.Y. 2010-1 - 2 - THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT THE FACT THAT HE DEPOSITE D THE IMPUGNED SUM IN HIS ICICI SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SOUGHT TO KNOW SOURCE THEREOF DURING SCRUTINY. THE ASSESSEE PLEADED THAT HIS RELATIVE SANJAYSINH H. RAJ HAD MADE THE IMPUGNED DEPOSIT IN HIS NAME FOR T HE PURPOSE OF FINALIZING AN RTGS PAYMENT IN FAVOUR OF A CAR DEALER. THE SAI D PERSON SUPPORTED ASSESSEES ABOVE EXPLANATION BEFORE THE ASSESSING O FFICER. HE FURTHER CLARIFIED THAT HE WAS EMPLOYED WITH M/S. WELSPUN LT D. FOR MONTHLY SALARY OF RS.5,000/-. HE EXPLAINED THAT HE RECEIVED SUMS OF RS.2.85LACS AND RS.1,82,300/- FROM HIS BROTHER AND FATHER RESPECTIV ELY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER GOT TO KNOW THE FACT THAT THE SAID DEPOSIT OR MAINTAINED AN AXIS BANK ACCOUNT AS WELL. HE THEREFORE REJECTED THE ABOVE E XPLANATION AFTER INCLUDING THAT THE ASSESSEES STAND ADOPTED HEREINABOVE WAS N OT JUSTIFIABLE. HE TREATED THE SAME TO BE AN AFTER THOUGHT EXERCISE TO MAKE AD DITION OF RS.4,67,500/-. THE CIT(A) CONFIRMS ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION. 3. HEARD BOTH SIDES. THE ASSESSEES ONLY SUBMISSION REITERATES HIS STAND ADOPTED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT HIS ABOVE STATED RELATIVE HAS DEPOSITED THE IMPUGNED SUM IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT FOR PURCHASING AKA THROUGH RTGS SETTLEMENT IN FAVOUR OF THE DEALER CONCERNED. RELATING BANK ACCOUNTS STATEMENT AT PAGES 7 TO 10 INDICATES INTER ALIA CAS H DEPOSITS OF RS.4,67,500/- ON 18.11.2009 FOLLOWED BY RTGS PAYMENT OF RS.4,67,3 00/- IN FAVOUR OF CAR DEALER M/S. PERFECT AUTO SERVICES. THIS DEALER HAS ALSO ISSUED RETAIL INVOICE IN ASSESSEES ABOVE RELATIVES NAME ON 19.11.2009(P AGE 11) AND RECEIPT AS WELL STATING TO HAVE RECEIVED THE SALE MONEY IN QUE STION THROUGH ASSESSEES ICICI BANK ACCOUNT. ALL THIS SUFFICIENTLY INDICATES THAT IT IS THE ASSESSEES RELATIVE IN FACT WHO HAD DEPOSITED THE IMPUGNED CAS H SUM IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINALIZING RTGS PAYMENT. WE THEREFORE REJECT REVENUES ARGUMENTS SUPPORTING THE IMPUGNED ADDITIO N IN VIEW OF BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES REASONING. ITS CASE LAW QUOTED (2014) 49 TAXMANN.COM ITA NO. 2192/AHD/14 (SHRI GAJENDRASINH J. RAJ VS. ITO) A.Y. 2010-1 - 3 - 101 (GUJ.) CIT VS. SARWANKUMAR SHARMA, (2015) 56 TA XMANN.COM 284 (GUJ.), BHAGWANDAS D. VACHHANI VS. ACIT, (2014) 42 TAXMANN.COM 571 (KERLA) K. V. MATHEW VS. ITO & (2013) 145 ITD 573 ( MUMBAI-TRIB.) M. H. RANEY VS. ITO CONFIRMING IDENTICAL ADDITIONS IN ABS ENCE OF SUFFICIENT COGENT EVIDENCE AS IN FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE STANDS DIS TINGUISHED. 4. THE ASSESSEES LATTER SUBSTANTIVE GROUND ASSAILS CORRECTNESS OF BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ACTION ADDING AGRICULTURAL INCOM E OF RS.48000/- PERTAINING TO HUF OF HIS ALLEGED FATHER. LEARNED COUNSEL REPR ESENTING ASSESSEE REFERRED TO CASE RECORDS COMPRISING OF REVENUE RECORDS TO TH IS EFFECT TO PROVE THAT HE OWNS AGRICULTURAL LANDS. THERE IS HOWEVER NO MATER IAL BEFORE US TO CLARIFY AS TO WHETHER THE HUF ITSELF HAS CLAIMED SUCH AGRICULT URAL INCOME OR NOT. WE THEREFORE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE IMPUGN ED ADDITION. LEARNED COUNSEL REPRESENTING ASSESSEE ARGUES THE CASE FOR S OME TIME TO SUBMIT THEREAFTER THAT HIS IMPUGNED ADDITION BE NOT TREATE D AS A PRECEDENT IN ANY PRECEDING OR SUCCEEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE REVEN UE IS EQUALLY FAIR IN NOT OPPOSING TO THIS PRAYER. WE THEREFORE AFFIRM THE I MPUGNED ADDITION SUBJECT TO A RIDER THAT THE SAME SHALL NOT BE TREATED AS PR ECEDENT IN ABOVE TERMS. 5. THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. [PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 28 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2017.] SD/- SD/- ( N. K. BILLAIYA ) (S. S . GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDIC IAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 28/08/2017 TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- / REVENUE 2 / ASSESSEE ! / CONCERNED CIT ITA NO. 2192/AHD/14 (SHRI GAJENDRASINH J. RAJ VS. ITO) A.Y. 2010-1 - 4 - 4 !- / CIT (A) ( )*+ ,--. . /0 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1 +23 45 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / . // . /0