Smt. Rupal Darshankumar Desai, Surat V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Surat

ITA 2434/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 94776 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 13-10-2015
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 02-09-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRADIPKUMAR MAJUMDAR
• Keywords: Unexplained investment
• Section: 147; 144

Judgement Text

ITA NO . 2434 /AHD/ 20 1 4 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2 0 0 5 - 06 PAGE 1 OF 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD A BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. GODARA , JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 2434 / AHD /201 4 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005 - 2006 SMT. RUPAL DARSH A NKUMAR DESAI VS. INCOME TAX O FFICER, 48, GAYATRI SOCIETY, WARD 2(4), SURAT . STATION ROAD, SURAT . [PAN A FUPD 5006 J ] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE (WRITTEN SUBMISSION) RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PRADIP KUMAR MAJUMDAR, SR. D.R. DATE OF HEARI NG : 13 .10.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30 .1 1 .2015 O R D E R PER S.S. GODARA THIS ASSESSEE S APPEAL FOR A . Y . 2005 - 06 , ARISES FROM ORDER OF THE CIT ( A ) - II, SURAT DATED 23.06.2014 IN A PPEAL NO. CAS - II/27/2013 - 14, IN PROCEEDIN G S UN D ER SECTION 144 R.W. S. 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT . 2. THE ASSESSEE RAISES TWO SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS IN THE INSTANT APPEAL. THE FIRST GROUND CHALLENGE VALIDITY OF THE REOPENING RECOURSE TAKEN BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER AND AFFIRMED IN THE LOWER APPELLAT E PROCEEDINGS. THE SECOND GROUND ASSAILS CORRECTNESS OF THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT ADDITION OF RS.4 , 41 , 000/ - MADE IN TCS SHARES ADDED BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE C IT(A) . CASE CALLED TWICE. NONE APPEARS ON ASSE SSEE S BEHALF. ITA NO . 2434 /AHD/ 20 1 4 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2 0 0 5 - 06 PAGE 2 OF 3 3. THE PERUS AL OF CASE FILE REVEAL S THAT SHE HAS PLACED ON RECORD W RITTEN SUBMISSION ON MERITS ONLY. WE ACCORDINGLY REJECT THE FORMER GROUND AS NOT PRESSED AND PROCEED TO DEAL WITH MERITS OF THE CASE. 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOOK NOTE OF AIR INFORMATION REVEALING ASSESSEE TO HAVE PAID A SUM OF RS.4 , 41 , 000/ - TOWARDS SHARE APPLICATION PERTAINING TO T ATA CONSULTANCY SERVI C ES LIMITED O N 19. 0 8.2004. HE SOUGHT DETAILS OF ITS SOURCE. THE ASSES SE E THR OUGH HER FATHER - IN - LAW PLEADED THAT HER APPLICATION FOR SHARES WAS MAD E IN PUBLIC ISSUE THR OUGH IDBI BANK, SURAT UNDER THE NON - INDUSTRIAL BUILDERS SCHEME WHEREIN THE ISSUE PRICE WAS RS.4,41,000/ - . AND THAT THE BANK ITSELF PAID TH E SAME BY CHEQUE AS THE ASS ESSEE HERSELF WAS ONLY REQUIRED TO CONTRIBUTE MARGIN MONEY OF NOT MO RE THAN 15 %. SHE CLARIFIED THAT ONLY 26 SHARES HAD BEEN ALLOTTED T O HER WHICH W E RE SOLD SUBSEQUENTLY AT A MARGINAL PROFIT. THE A SSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED IN HIS ORDER DATED 0 7. 0 3.2013 THAT THE ASSES SE E HAD NEITHER PLACED SUBST ANTIVE SOURCE OF I NVESTMENT N OR OF MARGIN M O NEY N OR ANY PROOF THAT THE IDBI BANK HAD BORNE THE REMAINING CHARGES. HE WENT BY THE CONTENTS OF THE EARLIER SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AND ADDED THE IMPUGNED SUM OF RS.4 , 41 , 000 / - AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTM ENT. THE CIT(A) HAS UPHELD THE SAME. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE REVENUE AND PERUSED THE ASSESS EE S WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS . THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT IT IS IN FACT IDBI B ANK WHO HAD DEPOSITED THE CHEQUE IN QUESTION AMOUNTING TO RS.4 , 41 , 000/ - ON 0 4. 0 8.2004. T HERE IS FURTHER NO QUARREL THAT THE ASSESSEE W AS ULTIMATELY ALLOTTED 26 SHARES ONLY @ RS.900 / - , HAVING TOTAL COST OF RS 23 , 400/ - . IT IS EVIDENT FROM PERUSAL OF PAPER BOOK THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAD BEEN MAINTAINING A SAVING S ACCOUNT WITH INDIAN B ANK FROM WHOM SHE PAID MARGIN MONEY OF RS.1 , 54 , 300/ - ON 30. 0 8.2008. A LL THESE FACTS MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE ASS ESSEE ITA NO . 2434 /AHD/ 20 1 4 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2 0 0 5 - 06 PAGE 3 OF 3 HAD CONTRIBUTED HER PART OF INVESTMENT WHICH DID NOT BEAR FRUIT AS ONLY 26 SHARES WERE ALLOTTED AND REST OF THE AMOUNT CAME THROUGH THE IDBI BANK. THIS IS NOT THE A SSESSING OFFICER S CA SE TH A T THE A SS ESSEE HAD DEPOSITED ANY OTHER AMOUNT WITH THE B ANK LIABLE TO BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT FOR WANT OF EXPLANATION OF ITS SOURCE. BE THAT AS IT MAY , THE ASS ESSEE APPLIED FOR 490 EQUITY SHARES BY ISSUING IDBI CHEQUE OF RS. 4 , 41 , 000 / - AND SUCCEEDED IN GETTING ALLOTMENT OF 26 SHARES ONLY HAVING GROSS PRICE OF RS.23 , 400/ - MUCH LESS THAN THE CORRESPONDING AMOUNT IN HER SAVINGS ACCOUNT. THE REVENUE IS UNABLE TO DISPUTE ALL THIS MATERIAL ON RECORD IN THE COURSE OF HEARING , NOR IT COULD PROVE EITHER IN T HE COURSE OF REASSESSMENT OR APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED THIS SUM OF RS.4 , 41 , 000 / - WITH IDBI B ANK ON HER OWN. WE OBSERVE , IN THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES , THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE WRONGLY MADE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF UNE XPLAINED INVESTMENT AMOUNTING TO RS.4,41,000/ - IN ASSESSEE S HANDS. THE SAME STANDS DELETED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. P RONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 30 TH D AY OF NOVEMBER , 2015. SD/ - SD/ - ANIL CHATURVEDI S.S. GODARA ( ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ( JUDICIAL MEMBER) AHMEDABAD , THE 30 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER , 201 5 PBN/* COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) COMMISSIONER (4) CIT(A) (5) DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD