Jenitaben Harshadbhai Patel, Baroda V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Baroda

ITA 2727/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5335 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 08-01-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 22-11-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J P JHANGID
• Assessee Lawyers: A C SHAH
• Keywords: Unexplained investment
• Section: 143(3); 147; 68; 63

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, AHMEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI G.C.GUPTA VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI ANIL C HATURVEDI, A.M.) I.T. A. NO. 2729 & 2727/AHD/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09) HARSHADBHAI MANGALBHAI PATEL, MATRUDA BUNGLOW, OPP. ABHINAVPARK SOCIETY NEW SAMA ROAD, BARODA -390009 PAN NO. AEKPP 5143 V/S THE ITO, WARD-3(1), BARODA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) JENITABEN HARSHADBHAI PATEL, MATRUDA BUNGLOW, OPP. ABHINAVPARK SOCIETY NEW SAMA ROAD, BARODA -390009 PAN NO. AEKPP 5139 B V/S THE ITO, WARD-3(1), BARODA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI A.C. SHAH RESPONDENT BY : SHRI J.P. JHANGID, SR. D.R. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 08-01-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07 -02-2014 PER SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI,A.M. 1. THESE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)- II, BARODA DATED 24.09.2013 FOR A.Y. 2008-09. ITA NO 2729 & 2727/AHD/2013 . A.Y. 2008-09 2 2. AT THE OUTSET THE LD. AR. SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE APPEALS ARE OF DIFFERENT ASSESSEES BUT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE IDENT ICAL EXCEPT FOR THE AMOUNTS AND THEREFORE THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THEM IN THE CASE OF ONE ASSESSEE WOULD BE EQUALLY APPLICABLE TO THE OTHER A ND THEREFORE BOTH THE APPEALS CAN BE HEARD TOGETHER. WE THEREFORE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OFF BOTH THE APPEALS BY WAY OF A CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. WE THUS PROCEED WITH THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF HARSH ADBHAI M PATEL. ITA NO. 2729/AHD/2013 3. THE RELEVANT FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERIAL ON RECORDS ARE AS UNDER:- 4. ASSESSEE IS AN ARCHITECT AND WAS ACTING AS A PARTNE R OF M/S DESIGNED ASSOCIATES WHICH WAS ENGAGED IN THE ARCHITECTURAL D ESIGNING WORK. HE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2008-09 ON 22.7.2 008 WHICH WAS REOPENED U/S 147 OF THE ACT AND THEREAFTER THE ASSE SSMENT WAS FRAMED ON 30.10.20011 U/S 143(3) RWS 147 AND THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS. 32,52,920/- AFTER MAKING ADDITION OF RS 30 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69B. AGGRIEVED BY THE OR DER OF AO, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE CIT(A). CIT(A) VIDE ORDER DATED 24.9.2013 DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND HAS RAI SED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 30,00,000 BEING THE INVESTMENT IN MUTUAL FUND OF STANDARD CHARTERED BANK UNDER SECTIO N 69B ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN AS MUCH AS THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT AND THEREFORE THE QUESTION OF ADDITION DOES NOT ARISE. ITA NO 2729 & 2727/AHD/2013 . A.Y. 2008-09 3 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 30,00,000 IN A.Y. 2008-09 THROUGH RS. 30,00,000 IS CREDITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT ON 05-12- 2006 RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2007-08 AND THAT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED BY CHEQUE FROM M/S RUDRA D EVELOPERS (PAN NO. AABCR3331H). 5. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AO NOT ED THAT ASSESSEE HAD MADE INVESTMENTS IN THE MUTUAL FUNDS AMOUNTING TO RS 30 LACS. ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE THE RELEVANT DOCUMENT S AND THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENTS. ASSESSEE INTERALIA SUBMITTED THAT ASSE SSEE HAD GIVEN RS 30 LACS TO THE OWNERS OF THE LAND SITUATED AT VILLAGE SAIYAD VASNA, DIST VADODARA FOR PURCHASE OF LAND THROUGH RUDRA DEVELOP ERS PVT LTD FROM 1987 TO 1998. DUE TO THE RISE IN PRICES OF LAND, TH E LANDOWNERS DEMANDED HIGHER PRICE RESULTING INTO LEGAL DISPUTE. LATER ON , A COMPROMISE WAS REACHED IN 2006 BETWEEN THE LANDOWNERS AND RUDRA DE VELOPERS AND PURSUANT TO THE SETTLEMENT LANDLORD REFUNDED THE MO NEY TO RUDRA DEVELOPERS WHO IN TURN REFUNDED THE MONEY TO THE AS SESSEE AND OTHER PERSONS. THE MONEY RECEIVED FROM RUDRA DEVELOPERS W AS UTILISED FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING INVESTMENTS IN MUTUAL FUND BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AFORESAID SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE TO THE AO. AO NOTED THAT THE FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE ASSESSE E WERE DIRECTORS OF RUDRA DEVELOPERS AND ON VERIFYING THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE COMPANY HE NOTICED THAT THERE WAS NO MENTION OF SUCH INVESTMEN TS BY THE COMPANY. HE ACCORDINGLY REJECTED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSE SSEE AND MADE ADDITION U/S 69B OF THE ACT OF RS 30 LACS. AGGRIEVE D BY THE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE CIT(A). CIT(A) C ONFIRMED THE ORDER OF AO BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- 3.3.1 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED AU THORIZED REPRESENTATIVE AND THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ADMITTEDLY THE ASSESSEE I S NOT MAINTAINING BALANCE SHEET AND THE AS PER THE RECORD, HE FILED RETURN SHOWING ONLY RS. 2,52,924/- AS INCOME DURING THE YEAR. SAME IS THE SITUATION IN PRECEDING YEARS. ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT IN THE YEARS BETWEEN 1985-86 TO 1995-96, WHEN HE WAS PRACTICING AS ARCHI TECT, HE ACCUMULATED AND INVESTED RS, ITA NO 2729 & 2727/AHD/2013 . A.Y. 2008-09 4 20-22 LAKHS-IN LANDS THROUGH M/S. RUDRA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT M/S. RUDRA; DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. IS A FAMILY CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE, .WHATSOEVER, TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ENO UGH INCOME OR SOURCES TO ACCUMULATE TO RS.30 LAKHS. THERE IS ALSO NO EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE SO MUCH OF MONEY, WAS ACTUALLY GIVEN BY HER TO RUDRA DEVELOPERS. NONE OF THE RETUR NS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE OR THE BALANCE SHEETS RELATING TO THOSE YEARS-HAS BEEN PRODUCED AS EVIDENCE. EVEN IN THE BOOKS OF RUDRA DEVELOPERS NO SUCH MONEY OWED,TO THE ASSESSEE IS SH OWN. IN FACT THE BALANCE SHEET OF M/S. RUDRA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. DOES NOT SUBSTANTIATE TH E THEORY OF THE APPELLANT. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED BACK MONEY FROM RUDRA DEVELOPRS IN DECEMBER 2006, SO THE AMOUNT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SHOWN AS OUTSTANDING LIABIL ITY IN THE 'BOOKS OF RUDRA DEVELOPERS AS ON 31.03.2006 AND IN IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR. NO SUCH LIABILITY IS SHOWN AS ON 31.03.2006 AND FOR PRECEDING YEARS. IT WAS STATED T HAT THE AMOUNT WAS SQUARED OFF/WRITTEN OFF IN THE BOOKS OF RUDRA DEVELOPERS, SO IT WAS NOT APPEARING IN THE BALANCE SHEET. HOW THAT AMOUNT WAS SQUARED OFF/WRITTEN OFF, IS NOT EXP LAINED AND IS NOT UNDERSTANDABLE AND CANNOT BE ACCEPTED WITHOUT COGENT REASONING AND EVI DENCES. FOLLOWING IS THE- COPY OF BALANCE SHEET OF M/S, RUDRA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. FO R THE PERIOD IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE ALLEGED PAYMENT OF RS, 30 LACS TO THE APPELLANT:--- ---------- 3.3.2 UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS NOT DIFFICULT TO S EE THAT M/S. RUDRA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. HAD NO CAPACITY OF INVESTING MONEY OF RS. 1.5 CRORE S IN LANDS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT AND OTHERS WHEN THE ENTIRE SHARE CAPITAL IS ONLY RS. 1, 65,000/- AS ON 31.03.2006. THE MERE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED MONEY BY CHEQUE IS NOT S UFFICIENT TO CONTRADICT THAT THE SAID AMOUNT IS MERELY AN 'ACCOMMODATION ENTRY' ARRANGED BY A FAMILY CONCERN. EITHER WE HAVE TO RELY THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF RUDRA DEVELOPERS C OMPLETELY OR HAVE TO IGNORE THE ARRANGED ENTRIES AND THE MATTER HAS TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF PREPONDERANCE OF HUMAN PROBABILITIES AS ENUNCIATED BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURT .IN THE CASE OF SUMATI DAYAL VS CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC). 3.3.3 EVEN THE ECONOMICS OF THE SO CALLED TRANSACTION IS UNBELIEVABLE, THE ASSESSEE IS SAID TO HAVE PUT IN RS.30 LAKHS, FOR A L/5 TH SHARE. SO THE TOTAL COST COMES TO RS.1.50 CRORE, THIS INVESTMENT IS BETWEEN 1987 TO 1998. THERE WAS A DIS PUTE WITH THE LAND OWNERS, STATED TO BE DUE TO ESCALATION IN LAND PRICES IN THAT AREA, BECA USE OF WHICH THE DEAL COULD NOT GO THROUGH. IN THE YEAR 2006 I.E. AFTER 20 YEARS A SUM OF RS.1.50 CRORE WAS RETURNED TO THE ASSESSEE AND OTHER CO-OWNERS. SO THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH OTHER CO-OWNERS ARE CLAIMING TO HAVE GIVEN UP THEIR RIGHTS IN THE LAND, AFTER PUTTI NG IN RS.1.50 CRORES FOR 20 YEARS, WITHOUT ANY COMPENSATION. THIS IS UNBELIEVABLE AND IMPRACT ICAL SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FIGURE .IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE COMPANY AS CREDITOR AS ON 31.03.2006. IN CASE OF CIT VS. DURG PRASAD MORE (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC), APEX COURT HAS OBSERVES AS UNDER: '8. NOW WE SHALL PROCEED TO EXAMINE THE VALIDITY OF THOSE GROUNDS THAT APPEALED TO THE LEARNED JUDGES, (IT IS TRUE THAT AN APPARENT MUST B E CONSIDERED REAL UNTIL IT IS SHOWN THAT THERE ARE REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT THE APPARENT IS N OT THE REAL PARTY WHO RELIES ON A RECITAL IN A DEED HAS TO ESTABLISH THE TRUTH OF THOSE RECITAL S, OTHERWISE IT WILL BE VERY EASY TO MAKE SELF-SERVING STATEMENTS IN DOCUMENTS EITHER EXECUTE D OR TAKEN BY A PARTY AND RELY ON THOSE RECITALS IF AT ALL THAT AN ASSESSEE WHO WANTS TO EV ADE TAX IS TO HAVE SOME RECITALS MADE IN A DOCUMENT EITHER EXECUTED BY HIM OR EXECUTED IN HIS. FAVOUR THEN THE DOOR WILL BE LEFT WIDE OPEN TO EVADE TAX. A LITTLE PROBING WAS SUFFICIENT IN THE PRESENT CASE TO SHOW THAT THE APPARENT WAS NOT THE REAL, THE TAXING AUTHORITIES W ERE NOT REQUIRED TO PUT ON BLINKERS WHILE LOOKING AT THE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BEFORE THEM, THEY WERE ENTITLED TO LOOK INTO THE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES TO FIND OUT THE REALITY O F THE RECITALS MADE IN THOSE DOCUMENTS. 9. NOW, COMING TO THE QUESTION OF ONUS, THE LAW DOE S NOT PRESCRIBE ANY QUANTITATIVE TEST TO FIND OUT WHETHER THE ONUS IN A PARTICULAR CASE HAS BEEN DISCHARGED OR NOT. IT ALL DEPENDS ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH, CASE, IN SOME CASES, THE ONUS MAY BE HEAVY WHEREAS, IN OTHERS, IT MAY BE NOMINAL. THERE IS NOTHING RIGI D ABOUT IT. HEREIN THE ASSESSEE WAS RECEIVING SOME INCOME. HE SAYS THAT IT IS NOT HIS I NCOME BUT HIS WIFE'S INCOME. HIS WIFE IS ITA NO 2729 & 2727/AHD/2013 . A.Y. 2008-09 5 SUPPOSED TO HAVE HAD TWO LAKHS OF RUPEES NEITHER DE POSITED IN BANKS NOR ADVANCED TO OTHERS BUT SAFELY KEPT IN HER FATHER'S SAFE. ASSESS EE IS UNABLE TO SAY FROM WHAT SOURCE SHE BUILT UP THAT AMOUNT. TWO LAKHS BEFORE THE YEAR 194 0 WAS UNDOUBTEDLY A BIG SUM. IT WAS SAID THAT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS JUST LEFT IN THE HAND S OF THE FATHER-IN-LAW OF THE ASSESSEE. THE TRIBUNAL DISBELIEVED THE STORY, WHICH IS, PRIMA FAC IE, A FANTASTIC STORY. IT IS A STORY THAT DOES NOT ACCORD WITH HUMAN PROBABILITIES. IT IS STRANGE THAT THE HIGH COURT FOUND FAULT WITH THE TRIBUNAL FOR NOT SWALLOWING THAT STORY. IF THAT STO RY IS FOUND TO BE UNBELIEVABLE AS THE TRIBUNAL HAS FOUND, AND IN OUR OPINION RIGHTLY, THE N THE POSITION REMAINS THAT THE CONSIDERATION FOR THE SALE PROCEEDED FROM THE ASSES SEE AND, THEREFORE, IT MUST BE ASSUMED TO BE HIS MONEY.' 3.3.4 FROM THE BALANCE SHEET OF M/S. RUDRA DEVELOPE RS PVT. LTD., IT CLEARLY TRANSPIRES THAT IT IS A PAPER COMPANY FLOATED BY THE APPELLANT AND HIS RELATIVES AND THE PAYMENTS RECEIVED BY CHEQUES FROM THIS PAPER COMPANY IS NOTHING BUT AN EYE-WASH TO DEFRAUD THE REVENUE. IN C1T VS PRECISION FINANCE P. LTD. 208 ITR 465 (CAL.) HON'BLE CALACUTTA HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT WHEN ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE GENUINE NESS OF CREDIT, MERE PROOF OF IDENTITY OF THE CREDITOR OR THAT THE TRANSACTION WAS BY-CHEQUE, IS NOT SUFFICIENT. SAME VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY MADRAS HIGH COURT IN CASE OF MANGILAL JAIN VS ITO [2010] 315 ITR 105 (MAD.). 3.3.5 HONBLE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD IN CASE OF CI T VS. HINDON FORGE (P.) LTD. (2012) 211 TAXMANN 113 (ALL.) (MAG.) IN RESPECT OF SECTION 68 HELD THAT WHEN ASSESSEE-COMPANY HAD TAKEN UNSECURED LOANS FROM EIGHT DIFFERENT TRUS TS COMMON MANAGING TRUSTEE WHO WAS ALSO MANAGING DIRECTOR OF ASSESSEE-COMPANY AND OTH ER DIRECTORS WERE HIS CLOSE RELATIVES, THE TRUSTS WERE RECEIVING-CASH DONATIONS, WHICH WER E TRANSFERRED ON SAME DAY TO ASSESSEE BY WAY OF CHEQUES AND THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PROVE TH AT TRUSTS HAD ANY OTHER SOURCES OF FUND OR THAT THEY HAD GIVEN CREDITS TO ANY OTHER PERSON OR COMPANY THEN METHOD AND MANNER ADOPTED BY ASSESSEE CLEARLY ESTABLISHED THAT HE WAS PLAYING A FRAUD WITH REVENUE AND SINCE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS WERE NOT ESTABLISHED AT ALL, THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF SHIFTING BURDEN UNDER SECTION 63 ON REVENUE. 3.3.6 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AND LEGAL POS ITION, SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS CLAIMING THAT THE. INVESTMENT MADE BY HIM DURING THE YEAR UNDER C ONSIDERATION WAS OUT OF HIS OWN FUNDS RETURNED BACK BY RUDRA DEVELOPERS, AN EXPLANATION N OT ACCEPTABLE DUE TO THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION PARTICULARLY IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT IM PUGNED AMOUNT WAS BEING REFLECTED -IN THE BOOKS OF RUDRA DEVELOPERS.AS ON 31.03.2006, THE ACT ION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN TREATING THE INVESTMENT AS UNEXPLAINED AND ADDING THE AMOUNT TO TOTAL INCOME U/S. 69B, IS CORRECT AND IS UPHELD. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS NOW I N APPEAL BEFORE US. 7. BEFORE US, AT THE OUTSET, THE LD.A.R. SUBMITTED THA T THE PRESENT APPEALS ARISE OUT OF THE SIMILAR ADDITIONS MADE OUT OF THE SIMILAR TRANSACTION OF INVESTMENTS IN MUTUAL FUNDS, IN THE CASE OF KRINABE N KIRANKUMAR PATEL AND WHICH WAS BEEN DECIDED BY H'BLE TRIBUNAL IN FAV OUR OF ASSESSEE IN ITA NO 122/AHD/2012 ORDER DATED 7.9.2012. HE ALSO P LACED ON RECORD THE COPY OF THE AFORESAID DECISION. HE THEREFORE SU BMITTED THAT SINCE THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO THAT OF IN THE CASE OF KRINABEN K ITA NO 2729 & 2727/AHD/2013 . A.Y. 2008-09 6 PATEL, THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE B Y THE AFORESAID DECISION AND THEREFORE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE NEEDS TO B E ALLOWED. THE LD.D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED ON THE ORDER OF AO AND CIT (A). 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. BEFORE US, THE LD. A.R. HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSU E IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS IDENTICAL TO THAT DECIDED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BEN CH OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF KRINABEN PATEL, THE COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED ON RECORD. IN THE CASE OF KRINABEN PATEL (ITA NO 122/AHD/2012 ORDER DATED 7.9.2012, THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL HAS HELD AS UNDER:- 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT THE AMOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WITH M/S.RUDRA DEVELOPERS P. LTD. ('RDPL' FOR SHORT) WAS RETURNED BY THEM PER CHEQUE AMOUNTING TO RS.30 LAKHS, WHICH WAS INVESTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN MUTUAL FUND OF STANDARD CHARTERED BANK, AND THEREFORE THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT UNDER SECTION 69B IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF THE DEPOSITS IN ITS BANK AC COUNT, AND THEREFORE IT HAS DISCHARGED ITS ONUS AS CONTEMPLATED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX AC T. HE REFERRED TO THE VARIOUS PAPERS FILED IN THE COMPILATION BEFORE US IN SUPPORT OF THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. HE REFERRED TO THE ORIGINAL ORDER OF T HE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE OF VADODARA WHEREIN A COMPROMISE ORDER BETWEEN THE PARTIES WAS PASSED. THE LEARNED DR HAS OPPOSED THE SUBMISSIO NS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. HE REFERRED TO THE RELEVANT .PORTIONS OF THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER AND THE APPELLATE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN SUPPORT OF THE CASE OF THE REVENUE, HE SUBMITTED THAT 'RDPL' WAS FAMILY CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE'S FATHER WAS DIRECTOR ALONG WITH OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE ACCUMULATE D RS.30 LAKHS TO DEPOSIT WITH 'RDPL' IN THE PAST YEARS BETWEEN 1987 TO 1998. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION HAS NOT APPEARED IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF 'RDPL'. HE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A). THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, IN HIS REJOINDER, REFERRED TO A NOTE FORMING PART OF THE ACCOUNT IN WHICH ALL THE RELEVA NT FACTS HAVE BEEN RECORDED AND ALSO THE AMOUNT OF RS. 30 LAKHS AS REPAYMENT OF CONTRIBUTIJON TO THE ASSESSEE WAS RECORDED. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE PERUS ED THE ORDERS OF THE A.O. AND THE CIT(A) AND ALSO COPIES OF VARIOUS DOCUMENTS FILED IN THE C OMPILATION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. WE FIND THAT IN THIS CASE, THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ONLY FOR THE SAKE OF ADDITION. THE ASSESSEE HAD LITIGATION AND BETWEEN THE LITIGANTS A COMPROMISE O RDER WAS PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE OF VADODARA IN SP.CIVIL SUIT NO. 105/1999, A COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN FILED IN THE COMPILATION ITA NO 2729 & 2727/AHD/2013 . A.Y. 2008-09 7 BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A COP Y OF BANK ACCOUNT WITH BANK OF BARODA, VADODARA WHEREIN THE AMOUNT PAID BY 'RDPL' OF RS.30 LAKHS PE R CHEQUE WAS CREDITED IN THE ASSESSEE'S ACCOUNT ON 5.12.2006. THE ASSESSEE ON THE SAME DAY I.E. O N 5.12.2006 INVESTED THIS AMOUNT OF RS.30 LAKHS IN A SHORT TERM FIXED DEPOSITS .ON 3.4.2007 THE AS SESSEE ENCASHED THE FIXED DEPOSITS AND WAS PAID RS.30,47,495/- BY CREDIT ENTRY IN ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE BANK OF BARODA. THE ASSESSEE ON 16.04.2007 HAS INVESTED THIS AMOUNT OF RS. 30 LAKHS FOR PURCHASE OF MUTUAL FUND WITH STANDARD CHARTERED BANK. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED THE COP Y OF THE BANK ACCOUNT OF RDPL WHEREIN THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION OF RS. 30 LAKHS HAS BEEN DEBITED TO THEIR ACCOUNT WITH BANK OF BARODA ON 05.12.2006. MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEES FATHER WA S A DIRECTOR IN RDPL ALONG WITH SOME OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS IS NO GROUND TO MAKE ADDITION OF THE AMOUNT, SOURCES OF WHICH HAS BEEN WHOLLY EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN ANY COGENT REASON FOR UPHOLDING THE ADDITION MADE UNDER SECTION 69B BY THE A.O. RDPL IN PART-B NOTES FORMING PART OF THE ACCOUNTS OF SCHEDULE-7 HAS SPECIFICALLY DETAILED THE RELEVAN T FACTS AND THE AMOUNT OF RS. 30 LAKHS AS REPAYMENT OF CONTRIBUTION TO THE ASSESSEE, KRINABEN KIRANKUMA R PATEL HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED UNDER THE HEAD RELATED PARTY DISCLOSURE. IN THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF CREDIT ENTRIES IN ITS BANK ACCOUNT AND THE INVESTM ENT BY HER IN THE MUTUAL FUND WITH STANDARD CHARTERED B ANK, AND ACCORDINGLY NO CASE OF ADDITION UNDER SECTION 69B AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT COULD BE MADE OUT BY THE DEPARTMENT AND THE ADDITION MADE IS ACCORDINGLY DELETED, AND THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 9. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED D.R. COULD NOT CONTROVERT TH E SUBMISSION OF THE LD.A.R. NOR HAS BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO D EMONSTRATE THAT THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL ARE NOT COVERED BY THE DECISION NOR HE HAS DISTINGUISHED THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE WITH TH AT IN THE CASE OF KRINABEN K PATEL. WE THEREFORE FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF KRINABEN PATEL (SUPRA) DELETE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. THUS THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ITA NO. 2727/AHD/2013 10. SINCE BOTH THE PARTIES BEFORE US HAVE ADMITTED THAT THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO THAT OF HARSHADBHAI PATEL (IT A NO ITA NO 2729 & 2727/AHD/2013 . A.Y. 2008-09 8 2729/AHD/2013), WE FOR THE REASONS GIVEN HEREINABOV E WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL IN THE CASE OF HARSHADBHAI PATEL, ALSO D ELETE THE ADDITION MADE IN THE PRESENT CASE. THUS THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 11. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 07 - 02 - 2014. SD/- SD/- (G.C.GUPTA) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD. TRUE COPY 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 ,AHMEDABAD