Shri Pursottamdas Vasantlal Vadodaria, Ahmedabad V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-12(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 2928/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 68089 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-12-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 19-12-2013
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 25-10-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R K DHANESTA SRDR
• Assessee Lawyers: B R POPAT
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

, , , , , , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH D BENCH, AHMEDABAD .., ! '# '# '# '# $ %&, ! BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER #./ I.T.A. NO.2928/AHD/2010 ( ( ')( ( ')( ( ')( ( ')( / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) PURSOTTAMDAS VASANTLAL VADODARIA 37, NAGARVEL INDUSTRIAL ESTATE RAKHIAL, AHMEDABAD- 380 023 / VS. THE ITO WARD-12(1) AHMEDABAD !* #./+, #./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAVPV 3939 J ( *- / // / APPELLANT ) .. ( ./*- / RESPONDENT ) *- 0 / APPELLANT BY : SHRI B.R. POPAT, AR ./*- 1 0 / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R.K. DHANESTA, SR.DR $'2 1 & / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 19/12/2013 34) 1 & / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31/12/2013 5 / O R D E R PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-XX, AHMEDABA D (CIT(A) FOR SHORT) DATED 31/08/2010 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT Y EAR (AY) 2007-08. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEA L:- THE HONBLE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN 1. CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.12,69,507/- IN RE SPECT OF CERTAIN AMOUNTS FOUND DEPOSITED IN THE BANK PASS BOOK BY INVOKING S ECTION 68 OF THE ACT. 2. CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.96,141/- BY TREAT ING THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED FROM VARIOUS CREDITORS AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U NDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, DELETE OR ALTER ONE OR MORE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. ITA NO.2928/AHD /2010 PURSOTTAMDAS VASANTLAL VADODARIA VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 2 - 2. AT THE OUTSET, LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMI TTED THAT HE DOES NOT WISH TO PRESS GROUND NO.2 IN VIEW OF THE SMALLNESS OF THE AMOUNT INVOLVED. 2.1. THE LD.SR.DR HAS NO OBJECTION. 2.2. IN VIEW OF THE STATEMENT OF THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, GROUND NO.2 IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 3. GROUND NO.1 IS AGAINST CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS.12,69,507/- BY INVOKING SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. THE AO OBSERVED TH AT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, DETAILS OF AMOUNT DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS WERE CALLED FOR ALONG WITH SOURCE OF THE SAME. ON PER USAL OF THE DETAILS FURNISHED IN RESPECT OF AMOUNT STATED TO BE RECEIVED FROM TH REE PERSONS; NAMELY, ANKIT P.VADODARIA - RS.3,61,507/-, MANSI P.VADODARIA - RS.3,85,000/- AND HANSA P.VADODARIA - RS.5,23,000/-, IT IS SEEN THAT ONLY COPIES OF ACCOUNT AND CLOSING BANK BALANCE O.D.CERTIFICATE HAVE BEEN GIVEN IN SUP PORT OF THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS. NONE OF THE THREE PERSONS ARE ASSESSED T O TAX. NO DETAILS ABOUT SOURCE OF THEIR INCOME HAS BEEN GIVEN. THEREFORE, THE AO DID NOT FIND THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AS SATISFACTORY A ND, ACCORDINGLY, HE ADDED BACK TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY INVOKING SECT ION 68 OF THE ACT. AGAINST THIS, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CI T(A), WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECOR D, CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITI ES BELOW. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBM ITTED THAT THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT WAS THE OVERDRAFT ACCOUNT AND HE HAS DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS PAPER-BOOK PAGE NOS.7, 8, 9 & 10 IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTENTION THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACTS IN RIGHT PERSPECTIVE. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THESE EVIDENCES WERE NOT PLACED BEFORE THE AO, HOWEVER THE CONTENTION OF THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS TH AT THESE EVIDENCES WERE BEFORE ITA NO.2928/AHD /2010 PURSOTTAMDAS VASANTLAL VADODARIA VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 3 - THE LD.CIT(A) AND HE DID NOT CONSIDER THE SAME. AFTER CONSIDERING ALL ASPECTS OF THE MATTER, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THA T THIS ISSUE MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF LD.CIT(A) FOR FRESH DECISION. ACCOR DINGLY, WE HEREBY SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE FOR DECISI ON AFRESH. THE LD.CIT(A) SHALL VERIFY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE LIGHT OF EVIDENCES PLACED ON RECORD. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT LD.CIT(A) WILL AFFORD REASONAB LE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO RESPECTIVE PARTIES. THUS, THIS GROUND OF THE ASS ESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED BUT FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED HER EINABOVE AT CAPTION PAGE SD/- SD/- ( .. ) ($ %&) ! ! ( N.S. SAINI ) ( KUL BHARAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 31/12 /2013 8.., '.../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS 5 1 .&9 :9)& 5 1 .&9 :9)& 5 1 .&9 :9)& 5 1 .&9 :9)&/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. *- / THE APPELLANT 2. ./*- / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ## & $; / CONCERNED CIT 4. $;() / THE CIT(A)-XX, AHMEDABAD 5. 9'%< .& , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. <( =2 / GUARD FILE. 5$ 5$ 5$ 5$ / BY ORDER, /9& .& //TRUE COPY// > >> >/ // / #+ #+ #+ #+ ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD