Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8929 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
CRN Number
Duration Of Justice
6 year(s) 1 month(s) 18 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
23-03-2017
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
SMC
Next Hearing Date
15-03-2017
Assessment Year
2007-2008
Appeal Filed On
04-02-2011
Judgement Text
, SMC/D IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC/D BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.303/AHD/2011 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 SHRI RAMJIBHAI J. SONANI, S/9, DARSHAN COMPLEX, OPP. MADHAV COMPLEX, NILAMBAUG, BHAVNAGAR PAN : AFXPS 0307 J VS. THE ITO, WARD 1(1), BHAVNAGAR [ / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ANKIT TALSANIA, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI PARVEEN KUMAR, SR DR / DATE OF HEARING : 15/03/2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 23/03/2017 / O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 07-08 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-XX, AHMEDABAD DATED 25.10.2010 VIDE APPEAL NO. CIT(A)-X X/241/09-10, ARISING OUT OF ORDER U/S 143(3) DATED 31.12.2009 FRAMED BY THE ITO, WARD-1(1), BHAVNAGAR. 2. ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1. THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.42 ,51,524/- U/S 69 OF THE ACT MERELY RELYING ON THE AIR INFORMATION WITHOUT APPRE CIATING THE FACTS THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT MADE INVESTMENT IN THE IMPUGNED P ROPERTY. 2. BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE FAILED TO APPR ECIATE THAT THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY IS PURCHASED BY THE FATHER OF THE APPELLAN T AND THEREFORE NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT. THE ID. CIT(A) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN ITA NO. 303/AHD/2011 SHRI RAMJIBHAI J. SONANI VS. ITO AY : 2007-08 - 2 LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN NOT APPRECIATIN G THE EVIDENCES / SUPPORTING FURNISHED TO SUPPORT THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLAN T THAT THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY IS PURCHASED OUT OF THE FUNDS REMITTED BY THE FATHE R OF THE APPELLANT. 3. ALTERNATIVELY AND WITHOUT PREJUDICIALLY, THE S OURCE OF INVESTMENT IN IMPUGNED PROPERTY HAS BEEN EXPLAINED AND UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND HANDS OF THE APPELLANT, WHICH IS NOT TAXABLE AS PER PROVISO TO SECTION 56(1)(V) OF THE ACT. 4. ALTERNATIVELY AND WITHOUT PREJUDICIALLY, THE SOU RCE OF INVESTMENT IN IMPUGNED PROPERTY HAS BEEN EXPLAINED AND UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF ID.AO IN MAKING ADDITION U/S 69 OF THE ACT. 5. ALTERNATIVELY AND WITHOUT PREJUDICIALLY, BOTH TH E LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE APPELLANT IS ONLY A J OINT-HOLDER AND THEREFORE IN ANY CASE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT CANNOT BE ADDED IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT. 6. BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE PASSED THE ORDER S WITHOUT PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE FACT AND THAT THEY FURTHER ERRED I N GROSSLY IGNORING VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS, EXPLANATIONS AND INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT FROM TIME TO TIME WHICH OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BEFORE PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 7. THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF ID. AO IN CHARGING INTEREST U/S 234B/C/D OF THE ACT. 8. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO IN INITIATING PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE A CT. 3. WHILE GOING THROUGH THE ABOVE GROUNDS, WE OBSERV E THAT ASSESSEE HAS RAISED EIGHT GROUNDS, OUT OF WHICH FIRST SIX GROUND S ARE AGAINST THE SINGLE ISSUE RELATING TO ADDITION OF RS.42,51,524/- CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) U/S 69 OF THE ACT. 4. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS, AS CULLED OUT FROM THE ASS ESSMENT RECORDS, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS O F DIAMOND ASSORTING AND POLISHING JOB WORK. HE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 01.02.2008 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.89,740/-. ON THE BASIS OF AIR INFORMA TION SHOWING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED IMMOVABLE PROPERTY IN MUMBAI , ASSESSEES CASE WAS ITA NO. 303/AHD/2011 SHRI RAMJIBHAI J. SONANI VS. ITO AY : 2007-08 - 3 SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY THROUGH CASS. NOTICE U/S 143 (2) FOLLOWED BY 142(1) WERE ISSUED AND DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. DURING TH E COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, INFORMATION WAS SOUGHT FOR IN RELATION TO SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY AMOUNTING TO RS.42,51,524/-. TH E ASSESSEE, EVEN AFTER BEING PROVIDED VARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES, COULD NOT PRO DUCE ANY DETAILS; HOWEVER, HE ADMITTED THAT HE HAS PURCHASED A FLAT IN GREEN W OODS SCHEME, ANDHERI, MUMBAI FOR RS.39,56,082/- (EXCLUDING STAMP DUTY) DU RING FINANCIAL YEAR 2006- 07, BUT BY MISTAKE THE SAME COULD NOT BE SHOWN IN T HE BALANCE-SHEET AS ON 31.03.2007. COPY OF PURCHASE DEED WAS FILED BEFORE THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER; BUT DUE TO LACK OF ANY OTHER INFORMATION RELATING T O SOURCE OF INVESTMENT, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT BY MAKIN G ADDITION OF RS.42,51,524/- U/S 69 OF THE ACT AND ALSO MINOR ADD ITION OF RS.9,530/- FOR DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION AND ACCORDINGLY ASSESS ED THE INCOME AT RS.43,50,790/-. 5. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE TH E LD. CIT(A), BUT COULD NOT SUCCEED AS BOTH THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS WERE CON FIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 6. FURTHER AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS.42,51,524/- MADE U/S 69 OF THE ACT. 7. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENT ATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT, DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RECORDED U/S 131 OF THE ACT BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ON 14.12.2009, WHEREIN ON THE BASIS OF REPLY TO QUESTI ON NOS. 8 AND 9, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FORMED AN OPINION THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS MADE INVESTMENT OF RS.42,51,524/- IN ONE FLAT IN MUMBAI, WHICH WAS NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE; AND HE, ACCORDINGLY, MAD E THE IMPUGNED ADDITION U/S 69 OF THE ACT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE LD. ASSESSI NG OFFICER MAINLY RELYING ON ITA NO. 303/AHD/2011 SHRI RAMJIBHAI J. SONANI VS. ITO AY : 2007-08 - 4 THE ANSWER TO QUESTION NOS. 8 AND 9 OF THE STATEMEN T RECORDED U/S 131 OF THE ACT. LD. AR CONTENDED THAT BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORIT IES HAVE FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT, IN THE VERY STATEMENT, VIDE QUESTION NO.9, TH E ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT THE INVESTMENT IN SUCH IMMOVABLE PROPERTY (FLAT) HAS BE EN MADE IN JOINT-NAME OF HIM AND HIS FATHER AND IT WAS MADE OUT OF THE FUNDS PROVIDED BY THE FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE OUT OF HIS AGRICULTURAL INCOME. IT IS ALSO CONTENDED THAT BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT EVEN WHISPERED THAT THE ASSESSEE, AT THE TIME OF RECORDING STATEMENT U/S 131 OF THE ACT ONLY, HAS ST ATED THAT THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY PURCHASED WAS IN JOINT-NAME AND IT WAS MAD E OUT OF THE FUNDS PROVIDED BY THE FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS, HE AR GUED THAT, IN THE PRESENT CASE, BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE CONVENIENTLY READ T HE STATEMENT IN A PART TO HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED THAT THE IMPUGN ED PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED BY HIM, NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND N O SOURCE IS EXPLAINED WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE SECOND LIMB OF ANSWER TO QU ESTION NO.9 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY WAS PURCHASE D IN JOINT-NAME AND WAS FINANCED BY THE FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE. IN SUPPORT THEREOF, AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI JERAMBHAI D SONANI (FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE) ALONGWI TH LEDGER ACCOUNT OF FLAT IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WAS ALSO PLACED ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.38,50,024/- WAS PAID BY HIM FOR PURCHASING THE I MPUGNED PROPERTY. 7.1 LD. AR FURTHER CONTENDED THAT, DURING THE COURS E OF THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE LD. CIT(A), HE CALLED FOR THE BA NK BOOK/PASS BOOK/BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF SHRI JERAMBHAI D SONANI, WHICH WAS ALSO PLACED ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE ALONGWITH BREAK-UP AND MODE OF PAYMENT OF RS.38,50,024/-. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.4,0 0,000/- WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE OUT OF BANK ACCOUNT OF HIS HUF. HE ALSO A DDED THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF SHRI JERAMBHAI SONANI HAVE NOT BEEN FOU ND TO BE INCORRECT OR NON- GENUINE BY THE ANY OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. ITA NO. 303/AHD/2011 SHRI RAMJIBHAI J. SONANI VS. ITO AY : 2007-08 - 5 7.2 LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, IN COMPLIANCE WI TH THE DIRECTION OF HONBLE BENCH DATED 22.06.2016, PLACED ON RECORD A COPY OF SHARE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY GREENWOODS CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY L TD SHOWING THAT THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY IS REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF SHRI JERAMBHAI D. SONANI (FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE AND FIRST HOLDER OF THE IMP UGNED PROPERTY) AND IN THE NAME OF THE APPELLANT (SECOND HOLDER OF THE IMPUGNE D PROPERTY). LD. AR REFERRED AND RELIED ON THE DECISION OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF POPATLAL N. VORA VS. ITO, VIDE ITA NO.2365/ AHD/2010, PRONOUNCED ON 22.11.2013. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATI VE VEHEMENTLY ARGUED SUPPORTING THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND ALSO SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH ANY SUPPORTING DOCUMENTARY EV IDENCE, EXCEPT THE COPY OF PURCHASE DEED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE SOURC E OF INVESTMENT TO PURCHASE THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. HE FURTHER ADDED T HAT, EVEN WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS JOINTLY OWNED BY ASSESSEES FATHER AND ASSESSEE , MOST OF THE CONSIDERATION CAME THROUGH BROTHER OF THE ASSESSEE WHO HAS ACCEPT ED TO HAVE RECEIVED CASH PERIODICALLY FROM HIS FATHER AND IN TURN HAD MADE T HE CHEQUES FAVOURING THE BUILDER. FURTHER, ASSESSEE HAS FILED VARIOUS DOCUM ENTS IN THE PAPER-BOOK WHICH INCLUDES NUMBER OF LAND OWNERSHIP BY FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE, FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF FATHER SHRI JERAMBHAI D. SONANI AND A FFIDAVIT OF ASSESSEES BROTHER SHRI GORDHANBHAI J. SONANI. NONE OF THESE DOCUMENT S HAVE BEEN SHOWN BEFORE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY, NOR ANY REMAND REPORT HAS BEEN SOUGHT BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO VERIFY THESE DOCUMENTS. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD PLACED BEFORE US. THE SOLITARY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. ASSESSING OFFIC ER MAKING ADDITION OF RS.42,51,524/- U/S 69 OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS OF A IR INFORMATION SHOWING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED IMMOVABLE PROPERTY AT 50 2, GREEN WOODS ITA NO. 303/AHD/2011 SHRI RAMJIBHAI J. SONANI VS. ITO AY : 2007-08 - 6 RESIDENTIAL COMPLEX, ANDHERI, MUMBAI. WE FIND THAT ASSESSEES CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS ON THE BASIS OF AI R INFORMATION SHOWING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED THE IMPUGNED IMMOVABLE P ROPERTY DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2006-07 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.42 ,51,524/-. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE REVELED THAT THE IMPUGNE D INVESTMENT WAS NOT DECLARED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS. WE FURTHER OBSERVE T HAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, EVEN AFTER PROVIDING SEVERA L OPPORTUNITIES, ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY DETAILS OF SOURCE OF INVESTMENT, E XCEPT COPY OF PURCHASE DEED. A STATEMENT ON OATH WAS RECORDED U/S 131(1) BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY ON 14.12.2009 IN WHICH WHILE REPLYING TO QUESTION NO.7 , ASSESSEE ADMITTED THAT HE HAS PURCHASED A FLAT IN GREEN WOODS SCHEME, ANDHERI , MUMBAI AT RS.39,56,000/-. FURTHER, IN REPLY TO QUESTION NO.8 , IN PARAGRAPH 5, HE AGAIN CONFIRMED THAT THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED BUT FOR SOME REASONS HE COULD NOT DECLARE IT IN HIS INCOME TAX RETURN. FUR THER, IN REPLY TO QUESTION NO.9, HE AGREED TO PROVIDE THE COPY OF PURCHASE DEED BUT WAS UNABLE TO PROVIDE THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT. HOWEVER, HE INFORMED THAT THE PROPERTY IS JOINTLY PURCHASED WITH HIS FATHER AND THE SOURCE OF INVESTM ENT CAME FROM THE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES CARRIED ON BY HIS FATHER. 10. WE FURTHER OBSERVE THAT APART FROM THE STATEMEN T ON OATH AND COPY OF PURCHASE DEED, THERE WAS NOT AN IOTA OF EVIDENCE FU RNISHED BEFORE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY, DUE TO WHICH THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER H AD NO OPTION BUT TO MAKE ADDITION U/S 69 OF THE ACT FOR RS.42,51,524/-. THE REAFTER, WHEN ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), HE SUBMITTED THAT THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY WAS ACTUALLY PURCHASED BY HIS FATHER ONLY AND HIS NAME WAS JOINTLY ADDED AS JOINT OWNER, BECAUSE FATHER WAS NOT HAVING PAN AND ALSO I N COMMON PRACTICE, WHEN THE AGED PERSON IS A PURCHASER, IT IS ALWAYS ADVISA BLE TO ADD THE JOINT OWNER, BECAUSE THE HEIR AND EXECUTOR CANNOT DEAL WITH SUCH PROPERTY IN THE ABSENCE OF PROBATE FROM THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE EVENT OF UNFORTUNATE DEMISE OF THE ITA NO. 303/AHD/2011 SHRI RAMJIBHAI J. SONANI VS. ITO AY : 2007-08 - 7 CONCERNED PERSON. LD. COUNSEL FURTHER PLACED ON RE CORD BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THE AFFIDAVITS AND CONFIRMATIONS FILED BY SHRI JERA MBHAI D. SONANI AND SHRI GORDHANBHAI J. SONANI, WHEREIN SHRI GORDHANBHAI SON ANI ACCEPTED THAT HE RECEIVED CASH FROM HIS FATHER OUT OF AGRICULTURAL I NCOME AND IN TURN HE PREPARED DEMAND DRAFT/CHEQUES TOTALING TO RS.30,39, 524/- WHICH WERE PAID IN PARTS OUT OF WHICH FEW FALL IN FY 2005-06 AND THE R EMAINING IN FY 2006-07. ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT REMAINING AMOUNT OF CO NSIDERATION CAME FROM FATHER AT RS.6,10,500/-; RS. 2,00,000/- FROM SHRI G HANSHYAM T. SONANI AND RS.4,00,000/- FROM RAMJIBHAI SONANI HUF. HOWEVER, L D. CIT(A), WITHOUT TAKING COGNIZANCE OF ALL THESE DETAILS FILED BEFORE HIM, C ONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER BY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF HON BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DURGA PRASAD MORE, 82 ITR 540 (SC), WHER EIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT SELF-SERVING AFFIDAVITS HAVE NO EVIDENTIARY VALUE. LD. CIT(A) ALSO RAISED DOUBT ON THE GENUINENESS OF THE SOURCE OF FUNDS COMING FR OM SHRI JERAMBHAI D. SONANI, THROUGH HIS SON SHRI GORDHANBHAI J. SONANI, AS THE BANK ACCOUNT OF SHRI JERAMBHAI D. SOMANI WAS HAVING A MEAGER BALANCE OF RS.200/- SINCE LAST MANY YEARS AND THERE WAS A DOUBT ABOUT SOURCE OF RS.37,0 0,000/- WHICH WAS KEPT IN CASH BY SHRI JERAMBHAI D. SOMANI. 11. IN THE BACKDROP OF ALL ABOVE NARRATED FACTS, WE FIND THAT BEFORE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY IT WAS ON RECORD, AS PER THE PU RCHASE DEED, THAT PROPERTY WAS JOINTLY PURCHASED BY THE APPELLANT AND HIS FATH ER, BUT NO DETAILS REGARDING SOURCE WAS PROVIDED; HOWEVER, IN APPELLATE PROCEEDI NGS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), MANY NEW DETAILS WERE FILED BUT IT SEEMS THAT LD. C IT(A) HAS NOT DEEMED IT FIT TO GET THE DETAILS PROPERLY VERIFIED/INVESTIGATED SO T HAT THE GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SOURCE OF FUNDS IS PROVED. WE ALSO OBSERVE THAT ASSESSEE IN HIS PAPER-BOOK FROM PAGE NO.70 TO PAGE 195 HAS FILED SERIES OF DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO SHRI JERAMBHAI D. SONANI (F ATHER OF ASSESSEE) SHOWING BALANCE-SHEET, PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, CASH BOOK, LEDGER ACCOUNT OF AGRICULTURAL ITA NO. 303/AHD/2011 SHRI RAMJIBHAI J. SONANI VS. ITO AY : 2007-08 - 8 INCOME, SALE BILL OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE, PROOF OF OWNER-SHIP OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AND STATEMENT OF BANK, WHERE MOSTLY CASH HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED JUST BEFORE THE DATE OF ISSUING THE CHEQUES TO THE BUILDER. TH ESE DETAILS WERE NOT PLACED FOR EXAMINATION BEFORE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITIES. SIMI LARLY, WE ALSO OBSERVE FROM THE CONFIRMATION LETTER GIVEN BY SHRI GORDHANBHAI J . SONANI, PLACED AT PAGE 54- 56 OF THE PAPER-BOOK GIVING A LIST OF VARIOUS CHEQU ES ISSUED BY HIM ON BEHALF OF HIS FATHER FOR THE PURPOSE OF PURCHASING IMPUGNED I MMOVABLE PROPERTY. THIS LIST CONTAINS PAYMENTS WHICH ARE FALLING IN FOUR FI NANCIAL YEARS, STARTING FROM FY 2004-05 TO FY 2007-08. THIS ITSELF SHOWS THAT THE RE HAS NOT BEEN A PROPER ENQUIRY TO VERIFY THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN ALL T HESE YEARS. IT PLAINLY LOOKS LIKE THAT ASSESSEE, IN ORDER TO INTENTIONALLY AVOID DEEP INVESTIGATION, DID NOT FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE, PAYMENT DETAILS AND SOURCE OF AGRICUL TURAL INCOME BEFORE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY, BECAUSE THERE IS A VERY LOW PR OBABILITY THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT HAVING THESE DETAILS UNDER HIS HAND EVEN WHEN T HE PROPERTY WAS IN HIS NAME AND THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE UNDERTAKEN TO THE END OF DECEMBER 2009. 12. WE ALSO OBSERVE THAT LD. CIT(A) SOMEHOW COULD N OT LAY HIS HANDS ON ALL THESE DETAILS, WHICH CLEARLY SHOWS THAT SOURCE OF I NVESTMENT IN THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY WAS JUST NOT CONFINED IN THE FINANCIAL YEA R 2006-07, BUT IT STRETCHED OVER FOUR FINANCIAL YEARS, COMMENCING FROM FY 2004- 05 TO FY 2007-08. 13 WE ARE, THEREFORE, OF THE VIEW THAT THERE HAS N OT BEEN SUFFICIENT/PROPER ENQUIRY OF VARIOUS DOCUMENTS, PAYMENT DETAILS, AFFI DAVITS FURNISHED BY VARIOUS PARTIES AND GENUINENESS OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME, WHI CH ALL SEEMS TO HAVE COME AFRESH BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND WE, THEREFORE, RES TORE ALL THE ISSUES IN THIS APPEAL TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO RE-ADJUDICA TE THEM AFRESH IN LIGHT OF VARIOUS DOCUMENTS AND DETAILS FILED BY ASSESSEE AND DISCUSSED ABOVE AND, IF NECESSARY, LD. CIT(A) CAN CALL FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND TO PASS FRESH APPELLATE ORDER. ITA NO. 303/AHD/2011 SHRI RAMJIBHAI J. SONANI VS. ITO AY : 2007-08 - 9 14. GROUND NOS. 7 & 8 ARE AGAINST THE CHARGING OF I NTEREST U/S 234B/C/D AND U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. WE HOLD THAT CHARGING OF INTEREST IS CONSEQUENTIAL AND THAT OF PENALTY IS PREMATURE AS THE ISSUES HAVE BEEN RESTORED TO LD. CIT(A) AND ACCORDINGLY DISPOSE OF THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 15. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 23 RD MARCH 2017 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- ( S.S. GODARA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED, 23/03/2017 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. $ & / CONCERNED CIT 4. & ) ( / THE CIT(A)- 5. $ , $ , /DR,ITAT, AHMEDABAD, 6. 0 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY (ASSTT.REGISTRAR) $ ITAT, AHMEDABAD
Other Referred Cases
-
Laws Referred To
-
1:1 Consultation on Business Development
₹1
1:1 Consultation on Salary Structuring
₹1
Guide to Charitable Trusts: Formation, Benefits, and Compliance
₹0
Assignment of Registered Trademark
Mehul₹500
Initial LLP Agreement
₹0
Finance Bill, 2026: Key Direct Tax Amendments on Assessments and Appeals
Team Counselvise - February 06, 2026
Residency Rules: Income Tax Act, 1961 vs Income Tax Bill, 2025 — A Subtle Yet Significant Shift!
Team Counselvise - February 18, 2026
Why Lacoste Won a 20-Year Trademark Battle Against Crocodile ?
Team Counselvise - March 10, 2026