The ITO,Vapi Ward-2, Vapi V. Shri Jignesh Dhanpal Sheth, Vapi

ITA 2624/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: 262420514 RSA 2009
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-12-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 28-11-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 22-09-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VINOD TANWANI
• Assessee Lawyers: SAKAR SHARMA
• Keywords: Salary income

Judgement Text

, , , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD, C BENCH . .. . . .. . , !' !' !' !', , , , #$ #$ #$ #$ # ## #. .. .% $% % $% % $% % $%, , , , &' ( &' ( &' ( &' ( & ' & ' & ' & ' BEFORE S/SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT AND A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA NO.2624/AHD/2009 [ASSTT.YEAR : 2006-2007] ITO, VAPI WARD-2 VAPI. /VS. SHRI JIGNESH DHANPAL SHETH PROP: SANMATI ROADLINES 202, ASHUTOSH APARTMENTS NR.NARAYAN PARK, ALKAPURI, VAPI. PAN : BCAPS 1859 L ( (( (*+ *+ *+ *+ / APPELLANT) ( (( (,-*+ ,-*+ ,-*+ ,-*+ / RESPONDENT) ( . / &/ REVENUE BY : SHRI VINOD TANWANI 12 . / &/ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SAKAR SHARMA 3 . 24'/ DATE OF HEARING : 28 TH NOVEMBER, 2011 5%6 . 24'/ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 2 ND DECEMBER, 2011 &7 / O R D E R PER G.C. GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT: THIS APPEAL FOR A.Y.2006- 2007 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), VALSAD. 2. THE GROUND NO.1 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL READS AS UNDER: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,25,000/- BEING THE WRITTEN DOWN VALUE OF A MOTOR TRUCK. 3. THE LEARNED DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO. T HE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND T HAT TRUCK IN QUESTION WAS ACTUALLY TRANSFERRED IN THE NAME OF TH E ASSESSEE AS WAS ITA NO.2624/AHD/2009 -2- SHOWN IN THE RTO BOOK SUBMITTED TO THE AO. THE CIT (A) HAS RECORDED THAT THE RTO BOOK REVEALS BOTH THE NAMES OF THE PRE VIOUS OWNER I.E. RAJEEV AGARWAL, PROP. OF ADITYA MOVERS FROM WHOM TH E ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED THE SAID TRUCKS AND ALSO THE NAME OF JIGN ESH SHETH, PROP. OF SANMATI ROADLINES. THE RTO BOOK IS A GOVERNMENT RE CORD AND COULD NOT BE DENIED AND THE STATEMENT OF SHRI RAJEEV AGARWAL SEEMS TO BE UNRELIABLE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ISSUE WAS RIGHTLY DECIDED BY THE CIT(A) IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY GR OUND NO.1 IS DISMISSED. 5. THE GROUND NO.2 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL READS AS UNDER: 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING ADDITION OF RS.3,93 ,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF INTRODUCTION OF CAPITAL. 6. THE LEARNED DR HAS RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO AND THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEES RELIED ON THE ORDER OF T HE CIT(A). 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECONCILED INTRODUCTION OF CAPITAL WHICH WAS AC TUALLY MADE OF TWO TRUCKS OF RS.2,25,000/- WHICH HE OWNED SINCE 1998 A ND WHICH ISSUE HAS ALREADY DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY US WHI LE DECIDING THE GROUND NO.1 (SUPRA) OF THE REVENUES APPEAL VIDE PARA-4 OF THIS ORDER. THE OTHER AMOUNT OF RS.1,68,000/- WAS BROUGHT FROM SOURCE OF INCOME I.E SALARY AND AGRICULTURAL RECEIPTS. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMIT TED SALARY INCOME FIGURE EARNED FROM 1999-2000 TO 2005-2006 AS SALARI ED EMPLOYEES AND ALSO BY ESTIMATING TRUCK PLYING INCOME UNDER SECTIO N 44AE OF THE ACT. THE CIT(A) HAS RECORDED THAT ON PERUSAL OF THE SALA RY CERTIFICATES AND EVIDENCES, IT IS CERTAIN THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS IN A POSITION TO BRING IN THE NOMINAL CAPITAL OF RS.1,68,000/- OUT OF PREVIOUS EA RNINGS. THERE BEING NO MATERIAL BEFORE US TO CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) IN THIS ITA NO.2624/AHD/2009 -3- REGARD, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE IS CO NFIRMED AND GROUND NO.2 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 8. GROUND NO.3 READS AS UNDER: 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DIFFERENCE IN RECEIPTS OF RS.29,22,157/- 9. THE LEARNED DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO WHI LE THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS PASSED WHILE REASONED SPEAKING ORDER ON THIS IS SUE AS RECORDED IN HIS APPELLATE ORDER THAT THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE WIT HOUT CONSIDERING THE ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AN D IN IGNORANCE OF THE FACTS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED RECONCILIATION STATE MENTS OF THE ENTRIES WHICH TALLIED WITH THE TOTAL RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESS EE WITH THE LEDGER OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE TIME PACKAGING. IN THESE CIRCUMSTA NCES, THE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT LEAVES NO DISCREPANCY IN T HE ENTRIES IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ADDITION WAS MADE W ITHOUT CONSIDERING THE ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND THE GROUND NO.3 OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE. SD/- SD/- ( #.% $% /A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY) &' ( /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . .. . . .. . /G.C. GUPTA) !' !' !' !' /VICE-PRESIDENT C OPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1) : APPELLANT 2) : RESPONDENT 3) : CIT(A)