Hamirbhai Gigabhai Muliyasiya, JUNAGADH V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), JUNAGADH

ITA 264/RJT/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9042 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-06-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 31-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 09-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: USHA N SHROTE
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT [CONDUCTED THROUGH E-COURT AT AH MEDABAD] (BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA. NO: 264/RJT/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) HAMIRBHAI GIGABHAI MULIYASIYA, BLOCK NO. B-1, NAYAN SOCIETY, ZANZARDA ROAD, JUNAGADH-362001 V/S INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD- 1(2), JUNAGADH (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: AGCPM8703G APPELLANT BY : SHRI CHETAN AGARWAL, A.R. RESPONDENT BY : MS. USHA N. SHROTE, SR. D.R. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 31-05-2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05 -06-2017 PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1. WITH THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE C ORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-3, RAJKOT DATED 16.04.2015 PERTAI NING TO A.Y. 2009-10. ITA NO. 264R JT/2015 . A.Y. 2009-10 2 2. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE READS AS UNDER:- 1. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-3, RAJKOT HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN IGNORING AND MISREADING THE DOCUMENTS PLACED ON RECORD AND CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER. 2. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-3, RAJKOT HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 9,32,657/-, AS PEAK OF CASH DEPOSITS IN JOINT SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT, WHICH MAY KINDLY BE DELETED AND JUSTI CE BE DONE. 3. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE R ETURN FILED ON 31.07.2009 WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT UNDER CASS FOR VERIFICATION OF SOURCES OF EXPENDITURE/INVESTMENT AND SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSI TED IN BANK ACCOUNT. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO SUBMIT THE SOURCE OF AMOUNT DEPOSITED IN H IS SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT WITH EVIDENCE TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE A. O. ON RECEIVING NO PLAUSIBLE REPLY, THE A.O. ADDED THE PEAK AMOUNT OF THE BANK BALANCE OF SBI AT RS. 9.32.657/- TO THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASS ESSEE. 5. ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) A ND EXPLAINED THE TRANSACTION. IT WAS STRONGLY CONTENDED THAT THE SAI D BANK ACCOUNT WAS IN JOINT NAME WITH HIS FATHER WHO IS IN AGRICULTURIST AND WAS STAYING A SMALL VILLAGE NAMED KOYALI. IT WAS FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT THE FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE SOLD OUT PORTION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AND CATTLE AND THE AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. ITA NO. 264R JT/2015 . A.Y. 2009-10 3 6. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RUBBISHED BY TH E LD. CIT(A) WHO CONFIRMED THE ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE A.O. BEFORE US , THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED WHAT HAS BEEN STATED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 7. THE LD. COUNSEL ALSO FILED THE COPIES OF THE SALE D EED OF PROPERTY SOLD BY THE FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH SOME CERTIFICATES FROM GRAM PANCHAYAT. IT IS THE SAY OF THE LD. COUNSEL THAT THE FIRST APPELL ATE AUTHORITY DID NOT GO INTO THE MERITS OF THE DOCUMENTS FURNISHED AND HAVE SIMP LY DISBELIEVED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WHILE CONFIRMING THE ASS ESSMENT. 8. PER CONTRA, THE LD. D.R. STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORD ER OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 9. WE HAVE GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE ORD ERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW QUA THE ISSUE. WE HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY PERUSED THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE BROUGHT ON RECORD IN THE LIGHT OF RULE 18(6) OF THE ITAT RULES. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE SAID BAN K ACCOUNT WAS IN JOINT NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FATHER. THEREFORE, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE CASH WAS DEPOSITED BY HIS FATHER CANNOT BE BRUSHED ASIDE LIGHTLY. FURTHERMORE, WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS FURNISHI NG DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES IN RESPECT OF SALE OF AGRICULTURE LAND/CA TTLE, THE SAME SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXAMINED FIRST BEFORE DECIDING THE ISSUE. WE FIND THAT SUCH EXERCISE WAS NEVER DONE BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. T HEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY, WE SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILES OF THE A.O. THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO FURNISH THE RELEVANT DOCUME NTARY EVIDENCES BEFORE ITA NO. 264R JT/2015 . A.Y. 2009-10 4 THE A.O. AND THE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO DECIDE THE ISS UE AFRESH AFTER CONSIDERING/EXAMINING THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES AND AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESS EE. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 05 - 06 - 2 017 SD/- SD/- (MAHAVIR PRASAD) (N. K. BILLAIYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER TRUE COPY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED: 05 /06/2017 RAJESH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT, RAJKO T