The ACIT, Circle-3, Baroda V. Shri Dhruv Dineshbhai Patel, Baroda

ITA 2263/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0886 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 06-09-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P MEENA
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Tax effect
• Section: 10

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO . 2263 /AHD/201 3 A SSESSMENT Y E AR S : 20 0 9 - 10 PAGE 1 OF 2 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH, SMC , AHMEDABAD [CORAM: PRAMOD KUMAR AM] I.T.A. NO. 2263 /AHD/ 20 1 3 ASSESSMENT Y EAR : 20 0 9 - 10 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 3 , BARODA . ....... ............ . A PPELLANT VS. DHRUV DINESHBHAI PATEL, . ...... . ... . RESPONDENT 203, WOODMORE APPT., 10, VRUNDAVAN SOC ., ELLORA PARK, BARODA 390 023. [ PAN: A DBPP 3858 M ] APPEARANCES BY: O.P. MEENA , FOR THE APPELLANT JIMI PATEL, FOR THE RESPONDENT D ATE OF CONCL UDING THE HEARING : JU LY 1 8 TH , 201 6 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : JU LY 19 TH , 201 6 O R D E R 1. BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CHALLENGED CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 24. 05.2013, PASSED BY THE L EARNED CIT(A), FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 0 9 - 10 , ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : - 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, LD . CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.10,15,000/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WITH OUT APPRECIATING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE SOURCE A ND GENUINE NE SS OF C A SH DEPOSITS. 2. (I) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, LD. CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.8,97,300/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF CO S T OF IMPROVEMENT CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN WORKING OF LONG T ERM CAPITAL GAIN WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH/PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM. 2 . (II) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, LD. C IT(APPEALS) ERRED IN REJECTING THE DISCREPANCIES POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING I.T.A. NO . 2263 /AHD/201 3 A SSESSMENT Y E AR S : 20 0 9 - 10 PAGE 2 OF 2 OFFICER IN RESPECT OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES OF CLAIM OF COST OF IMPROVEMENT IN THE REMAND REPORT MERELY ACCEPTING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE . 2. I HAVE NOTICED THAT THE TAX EFFECT INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS LESS THAN RS.10,00,000/ - . IN VIEW OF THIS UNDISPUTED FACT AND IN THE LIGHT OF CBDT CIRCULAR NO.21/2015 DATED 10 TH DECEMBER, 2015, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THIS APPEAL IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT TAX EFFECT INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL IS LESS THAN RS.10,00,000/ - . 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 19 TH DAY OF JULY , 2016. SD/ - PRAMOD KUMAR (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) DATED: THE 19 TH DAY OF JU LY , 2016. PBN/* COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) DR (6) GUARD FILE BY ORD ER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD