Shri Raj Arjan Ahir, Ahmedabad V. The ITO, Ward-7(1)(4), Ahmedabad

ITA 2877/AHD/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2347 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-06-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 19-12-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ILA PARMAR
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; TDS

Judgement Text

, - IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH SMC BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 2886/AHD/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 BHAVNA RAMESH MARAND 5, ELEGANCE BUNGLOWS OPP: BHAVIN SCHOOL THALTEJ, AHMEDABAD 380 051. PAN : ALXPD 5131 D VS ITO, WARD-7(1)(4) AHMEDABAD. ./ ITA NO. 2877/AHD/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 SHRI RAJ ARJAN AHIR 5, ELEGANCE BUNGALOWS OPP: BHAVIN SCHOOL THALTEJ, AHMEDABAD 380 051. PAN : ANWPA 3828 K VS ITO, WARD-7(1)(4) AHMEDABAD. / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SMT.ILA PARMAR, SR.DR / DATE OF HEARING : 06/06/2019 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25/06/2019 O R D E R PRESENT TWO APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEES AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE LD.CIT(A) DATED 17.1 0.2017 AND 11.9.2017 PASSED IN THE APPEALS OF SMT.BHAVNA R. MARAND AND R AJ ARJAN AHIR IN THE ASSTT.YEAR 2014-15 RESPECTIVELY. ISSUES IN BO TH APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL, THEREFORE, THE TRIBUNAL HEARD THEM TOGETHER AND DEE M IT APPROPRIATE TO DISPOSE OF THEM BY THIS COMMON ORDER. ITA NO.2886 AND 2887/AHD/2017 - 2 - 2. APPEAL OF SMT.BHAVNA RAMESH MARAND WAS LISTED ON 26.4.2019 AND HEARING WAS ADJOURNED TO 6.6.2019 ON HER APPLIC ATION. IN THE CASE OF RAJ ARJAN AHIR, HIS APPEAL WAS LISTED ON 18.4.2019 AND ON HIS APPLICATION HEARING WAS ADJOURNED TO 6.6.2019. HOWEVER, ON 6.6 .2019 BOTH THE ASSESSEES DID NOT APPEAR. THEREFORE, THEIR APPEALS HAVE BEEN HEARD EX PARTE WITH HELP OF LD.DR. 3. IN BRIEF GRIEVANCE OF SMT.BHAVANA R. MARAND IS T HAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.5,98,505/- A ND RS.3,28,000/-. AS FAR ADDITION OF RS.3,28,000/- IS CONCERNED, THIS WA S ADDED ON THE GROUND THAT THE CASH WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, AND SHE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF SUCH DEPOSITS, HENC E, IT WAS ADDED ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. AS FAR AS ADDI TION OF RS.5,98,505/- IS CONCERNED, THIS WAS ADDED BY THE AO ON THE GROUND T HAT THERE IS A MISMATCH IN THE FIGURE REFLECTED IN FORM 26AS VIS- -VIS SALARY STATEMENT ISSUED BY THE EMPLOYER IN FORM NO.16. IN OTHER WOR DS, THE STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE EMPLOYER ON ACCOUNT OF DEDUCTION O F TDS IN FORM NO.26AS, A HIGHER FIGURE WAS REFLECTED WHICH HAS NO T BEEN RECOGNIZED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SALARY STATEMENT. 4. IN THE CASE OF SHRI RAJ ARJAN AHIR ADDITION OF R S.3,49,000/- WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. THIS AD DITION WAS MADE ON THE GROUND THAT CASH OF RS.3,49,000/- WAS FOUND TO BE DEPOSITED IN THE SAVING BANK ACCOUNT WITH HDFC BANK AND THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DISCLOSE THE SOURCE OF SUCH DEPOSITS. THE SECOND ADDITION M ADE IN HIS CASE RELATES TO A SUM OF RS.6,14,907/-. THIS ADDITION W AS MADE ON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN 26AS AND RETURNED INC OME. THE FINDING OF THE LD.CIT(A) IN BOTH THE CASES ARE IDENTICAL. HOW EVER, ON PERUSAL OF THE ITA NO.2886 AND 2887/AHD/2017 - 3 - ASSESSMENT ORDER, I FIND THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THE CASE OF SMT.BHAVNA R. MARAND IS RUNNING INTO 19 PAGES WHERE AS IN THE CASE OF SHRI RAJ ARJAN AHIR IT IS IN 18 PAGES. THE LD.AO H AS SCANNED VARIOUS COPIES OF THE NOTICES, SALARY STATEMENT, FORM NO.26 AS, THEIR REPLIES, BUT THE CONTENTS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ARE NOT LEGIBL E. I AM UNABLE TO READ THEM. IT IS QUITE DIFFICULT FOR ME TO RECORD A FIN DING ON THE BASIS OF SUCH NARRATION. IN SPITE OF TAKING AN ADJOURNMENT, BOTH THE APPELLANTS FAILED TO APPEAR BEFORE ME ON THE DATE OF HEARING. THEREF ORE, IT IS PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEES ARE NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTIN G THEIR APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. IN VIEW OF THIS, I DISMISS BOTH APPE ALS OF THE ASSESSEES. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMI SSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25 TH JUNE, 2019. SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER