Vijaybhai T. Dholakiya, RAJKOT-GUJARAT V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(2), RAJKOT-GUJARAT

ITA 24/RJT/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0247 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-10-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 30-01-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources
• Section: 147

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.24/RJT/2017 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2012-13 VIJAYBHAI T. DHOLAKIYA AT. KAMLAPUR, TAL. GONDAL DIST. RAJKOT VS. ITO, WARD - 2(1)(2) RAJKOT. ( APPLICANT ) ( RESPONENT ) ASSESSEE BY : WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS REVENUE BY : SHRI ANIL KUMAR DAS, DR / DATE OF HEARING : 20/09/2019 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 03/10/2019 )*+/ O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST O RDER OF LD.CIT(A)-2, RAJKOT DATED 8.11.2016 PASSED FOR THE ASSTT.YEAR 20 12-13. 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE T IME OF HEARING. THEREFORE, WE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF APPEAL EX PARTE QUA ASSESSEE-APPELLANT AFTER HEARING THE LD.DR AND CONSIDERING THE MATERIA L AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 3. GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT IN CONSONANCE WITH RULE 8 OF THE INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES , 1963 - THEY ARE DESCRIPTIVE AND ARGUMENTATIVE IN NATURE. IN BRIEF , SOLE GRIEVANCE OF THE ITA NO.24/RJT/2017 2 ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRM ING ADDITION OF RS.2,76,750/- ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITS AS UNACCO UNTED INCOME. 4. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND ENGAGED IN SHARE TRADING. HE HAS NOT FILED RETURN OF INCOM E FOR THE ASSSTT.YEAR 2012- 13. ON VERIFICATION OF CIB DATA (MCDX), IT WAS REV EALED TO THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO A TRANSACTION OF RS.33,21 ,63,460/- BUT NOT OFFERED FOR TAX. NOTICES ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE REASON FOR NON-FILING OF THE RETURN AND TRANSACTION DETAILS, YIELDED NO RESULT. THEREFORE, THE LD.AO PROCEEDED TO MAKE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 OF T HE ACT. THE LD.AO ALSO REVEALED TO THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS INCURRING OVERALL LOSS FROM THE SPECULATION BUSINESS DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2011 -12, HOWEVER, NO RETURN WAS FILED. FROM THE BANK STATEMENT OF SBI, JAWAHAR CHOWK BRANCH, RAJKOT, IT WAS NOTICED BY THE AO THAT ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITE D CASH DURING THE YEAR AGGREGATING TO RS.2,76,750/. THIS WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AS LOAN TAKEN FROM HIS MOTHER AND FATHER, WHO ENGAGED IN AGRICULT URE ACTIVITIES. THE LD.AO DID NOT ACCEPT THIS EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND TREATED THE CASH DEPOSITS AS UNACCOUNTED INCOME AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD.CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO. ASSESSEE IS NOW BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. BEFORE US, ASSESSEE WAS REPRESENTED BY, SHRI D.R . ADHIR, BUT HAS NOT PUT APPEARANCE AT THE TIME HEARING. HOWEVER, HE FI LED A WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. IT IS PLEADED IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS THAT THE C ASH DEPOSITS APPEARING IN THE BANK ACCOUNT ARE BORROWAL FROM HIS FATHER AND MOTHE R. HIS FATHER IS A PENSIONER FROM THE STATE GOVERNMENT AND HAVING INCO ME FROM PENSION. HIS MOTHER HAS AGRICULTURE LAND, FROM THAT SHE IS CULTI VATING CROPS AND HAVING INCOME FROM SALE OF CROPS. ASSESSEE HAS FILED FORM NO.7/12 AND COPIES OF BILLS FOR SALE OF AGRICULTURE PRODUCTS. IT IS PLEA DED THAT THE LD.AO HAS NOT ITA NO.24/RJT/2017 3 MADE ANY EFFORT TO INQUIRE INTO THE DETAILS SUBMITT ED BY THE ASSESSEE AND STRAIGHT WAY MADE ADDITION WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS, THEREFORE, PLEADED THAT ADDITION BY THE REVENUE IS WITHOUT ANY JUSTIFICATION AND THE SAME IS LIABLE TO BE CANCELLE D. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD.DR, AND GONE THROUGH THE WR ITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT IMPUGNED ADDIT ION OF RS.2,76,750/- WAS MADE BY THE LD.REVENUE AUTHORITIES ON THE BASIS OF INADEQUACY OF DETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE CASH DEPOSITS MA DE IN THE BANK. AS IT MERGES FROM THE RECORD, ASSESSEES FATHER IS HAVING PENSION INCOME FROM THE STATE GOVERNMENT, AND MOTHER IS ALSO HAVING AGRICUL TURE INCOME. THE LD.REVENUE HAS NOT DISPUTED THIS ASPECT, I.E. CAPAC ITY OF PARENTS TO GIVE CASH TO THE ASSESSEE. ASSESSEE HAS FILED FORM NO.7/12 AND B ILLS SHOWING SALE OF AGRICULTURE PRODUCE TO PROVE HIS CASE. IT IS NOT UNUSUAL PRACTICE IN INDIA TO GIVE FINANCIAL SUPPORT TO CHILDREN BY THE PARENTS, WHICH, IF SEEN IN THE CONTEXT OF FACT NOTED BY THE REVENUE THAT ASSESSEE WAS DERI VING OVERALL LOSS FROM THE SPECULATION BUSINESS DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2011 -12, THEN CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE BRUSHED ASIDE. THE DETAILS SUBM ITTED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE NOT BEEN RIGHTLY APPRECIATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORI TIES. BEFORE REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW OUGHT TO HAVE CALLED FOR FURTHER INFORMATION FROM HIS PARENTS. THE LD.AO HAS NOT CA RRIED OUT SUCH EXERCISE, AND MADE OUTRIGHT ADDITION. WE ARE NOT CONVINCED B Y THE ACTION OF THE REVENUE IN SUMMARILY REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASS ESSEE. WE CANCEL THE ADDITION AND ALLOW THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSE SSEE. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 3 RD OCTOBER, 2019 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (WASEEM AHMED ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 03/10/2019