Smt. Kalpana Suresh Rochani, Baroda V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-2(4), Baroda

ITA 3164/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 316420514 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-12-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 02-12-2013
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 29-11-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P BATHEJA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Gift

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD A BENCH BEFORE: SRI D.K TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT M EMBER SMT. KALPANA SURESH ROCHNI PAN: AEVPR5731C (APPELLANT) VS ITO, WARD-2(4), BARODA (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY: SRI O.P. BATHEJA, SR.D.R. ASSESSEE BY: NONE DATE OF HEARING : 02-12-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13-12-20 13 / ORDER PER : D.K. TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THIS IS THE ASSESSEES APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-II BARODA DATED 23-08-2010. ITA NO. 3164/AHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 I.T.A NO.3164/AHD/2010 A.Y. 2006-07 PAGE NO SMT KALPANA SURESH ROCHANI VS. ITO 2 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE THE FACT THAT NOTICE FOR TODAYS HEARING WAS SERVED BY THE DEPARTMENT BY AFFIXTURE ON 29-10-2013 NOR ANY ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN SOUGHT. THE OFFICE CO PY WITH AFFIXTURE IS ON RECORD. SO WE PROCEEDED TO DECIDE THIS APPEAL BY H EARING LD. D.R. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPE AL:- 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACT S OF THE APPELLANTS CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY LD. AO OF RS. 5,38,100/- U/S. 68 OF THE ACT. THE APPELLANT MOST HUMBLY SUBMITS THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF HER CASE AND IN LAW NO PART OF THE SAME IS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT AS SOURCES OF INVESTMENT MA DE IS FULLY EXPLAINED AND PRAYS THAT YOUR HONBLE ITAT BE PLEAS ED TO HOLD SO NOW AND DELETE THE ADDITION MADE. 4. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF BEAUTY PARLOUR, BEAUTY PRODUCT AND BEAUTY TREATM ENT. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THERE HAS BEEN CASH CREDIT OF RS. 5,38,100/- IN ASSESSEES ACCOUNT. TH E ASSESSEE WAS ASKED AS TO WHY THIS AMOUNT SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS UNACCOUNTE D CASH CREDIT U/S. 68 OF THE ACT. IN RESPONSE TO THIS, ASSESSEE DID NOT OBJ ECT FOR MAKING SUCH ADDITION. AO THEREFORE MADE ADDITION OF RS. 5,38,1 00/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S. 68 OF THE ACT AND ADDE D TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. I.T.A NO.3164/AHD/2010 A.Y. 2006-07 PAGE NO SMT KALPANA SURESH ROCHANI VS. ITO 3 5. BEFORE LD. CIT(A), THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSE E WAS THAT THE BANK ACCOUNT WHERE THE CASH HAS BEEN DEPOSITED WAS A JOI NT ACCOUNT WITH ASSESSEES HUSBAND. IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT DURING THE YEAR, THE HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD A FURNITURE AND UTENSILS OF T HE DINING HALL AND DEPOSITED THE CASH OF RS. 3,30,000/- IN THE BANK OU T OF THIS SALE AND AFFIDAVIT TO THE EFFECT WAS ALSO FILED. FURTHER AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1,26,000/- WAS SAID TO BE LAST YEARS CLOSING BALANCE DEPOSITED IN THE BAN K AND AMOUNT OF RS. 38,000/- WAS SAID TO BE GIFT FROM MOTHER AND AN AMO UNT OF RS. 19,130/- WAS SAID TO BE OUT OF PERSONAL SAVING AND IN RESPECT OF RS. 24,500/- CASH DEPOSITED, IT WAS STATED TO BE LOANS FROM TWO PERSO NS I.E. RS. 20,000 FROM SRI BHAMER PROHIT AND RS. 45,00 FROM SHRI RAJESH RAWAL. 6. SINCE IN SUPPORT OF ABOVE SUBMISSION, NO EVIDENC E WAS FILED EXCEPT THE AFFIDAVIT OF ASSESSEES HUSBAND IN RESPECT OF D EPOSIT OF RS. 3,30,000/- LD. CIT(A) TREATED THIS AFFIDAVIT AS ONLY A SELF-SERVIN G DOCUMENT AND NOT BELIEVABLE. HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT FOR SELLING OF ASSETS OF RUNNING BUSINESS, THERE MUST BE EVIDENCE AND ALSO THE QUEST ION OF THEIR TAXABILITY WAS TO BE EXAMINED. SINCE NO SUCH INFORMATION/EVIDENCE WAS FURNISHED, THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS TREATED BY LD. CIT(A) AS NON- GENUINE. 7. BEFORE US ALSO NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER HAS BEEN F ILED EITHER AT THE TIME OF FILING OF APPEAL OR DURING THE APPELLATE PR OCEEDINGS. WE ARE THEREFORE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) AND THE SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD. I.T.A NO.3164/AHD/2010 A.Y. 2006-07 PAGE NO SMT KALPANA SURESH ROCHANI VS. ITO 4 8. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE AT CAPTION PAGE SD/- SD/- (A.K. GARODIA) ( D.K. TYAGI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER J UDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 13/12/2013 AK / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. ASSESSEE 2. REVENUE 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , / ,