Shri Shantilal M.Darji, Baroda V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-6(2), Baroda

ITA 3167/AHD/2008

• Counselvise Citation: 316720514 RSA 2008
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 19-09-2013
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 08-09-2008
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B L YADAV
• Assessee Lawyers: S N DIVATIA
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources

Judgement Text

, , , , , , , , , , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD .., BEFORE SHRI B.P.JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER !./ I.T.A.NO.3167/AHD/2008 ( # $%# # $%# # $%# # $%# / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2000-01) SHANTILAL M.DARJI L-50, VAUIKUNTH BUNGALOW-2 NEW VIP ROAD BARODA / VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(2) BARODA & !./' !./ PAN/GIR NO. : AFJPD 9337 B ( &( / // / APPELLANT ) .. ( )*&( / RESPONDENT ) &( + / APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.N.DIVATIA AR )*&( , + / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI B.L. YADAV, SR.D.R. -$. , /0 / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 19/09/2013 12% , /0 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19/09/2013 3 / O R D E R THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARISES FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(APPEALS)-VI, BARODA DATED 02/06/2008 FOR THE ASSTT.YEAR 2000- 01. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1) THAT THE LEARNED C.I.T.(APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMIN G THE ADDITION OF RS.15000/- BEING PURCHASE VALUE OF NSC ON THE ALLEGED GROUND THAT THE SAID INVESTMENT IS OUT OF U NDISCLOSED INCOME. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS), IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES OF THE CASE, OUGHT NOT TO HAVE ADDED THE INVESTMENT IN NSC AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. ITA NO.3167/AHD /2008 SHANTILAL M. DARJI VS. ITO ASST.YEAR - 2000-01 - 2 - 2) THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE AD DITION OF RS.50000/- BEING INVESTMENT MADE BY NIRUBEN S.DARJI IN NSC, PPF & KVP TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF YOUR APPELLANT AS INVESTMENT OUT OF UNEXPLAINED SOURCES. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE CASE, OUGHT NOT TO HAVE ADDED THE INVESTMENT IN NSC , PPF & KVP TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF YOUR APPELLANT AS INVEST MENT OUT OF UNEXPLAINED SOURCES. 3) THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE AD DITION OF RS.20000/- BEING INVESTMENT IN KVP BY SMT.INA/HIREN DARJI ON 24/2/2000 ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME IS UNEXPLAINE D. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE CASE, OUGHT NOT TO HAVE ADDED THE INVESTMENT IN KVP BY SMT.INA/HIREN DARJI ON 24/2/2000 ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME IS UNEXPLAINED. 4) THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE AD DITION OF RS.40000/- BEING INVESTMENT MADE IN PPF ON 20/10/99 IN THE NAME OF MISS PALAK S.DARJI AND HIREN S.DARJI ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME IS UNEXPLAINED. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS), IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES OF THE CASE, OUGHT NOT TO HAVE ADDED THE INVESTMENT MADE I N PPF ON 20/10/99 IN THE NAME OF MISS PALAK S.DARJI AND HIRE N S.DARJI ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME IS UNEXPLAINED. 5) THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE AD DITION OF RS.60000/- BEING DEPOSIT MADE IN P.O DEPOSIT A/C IN THE NAME OF SHRI HIREN S.DARJI & CHHABILDAS M.DARJI ON THE G ROUND THAT THE SAME IS UNEXPLAINED. THE LEARNED CI(APPEALS), IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE CASE, OUGHT NOT TO HAVE ADDED ANY AMOUNT OUT OF THE DEPOSIT MADE BY SHRI CHHABILDAS M.DARJI. 6) THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE AD DITION OF RS.30000/- DEPOSITED ON 7/4/99 WITH CORPORATION BAN K, GANDHI NAGAR TREATING THE SAME AS OUT OF UNEXPLAINED INCOM E. ITA NO.3167/AHD /2008 SHANTILAL M. DARJI VS. ITO ASST.YEAR - 2000-01 - 3 - THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS), IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES OF THE CASE, OUGHT NOT TO HAVE ADDED THE AMOUNT OF RS.3000 0/- DEPOSITED IN HIS BANK A/C. 7) THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE AD DITION OF RS.50000/- BEING INVESTMENT MADE AS APPLICATION MON EY FOR SHARES OF CADILA HEALTH CARE ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME IS MADE OUT OF UNEXPLAINED INCOME. THE LEARNED CIT(APEPALS), IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES OF THE CASE, OUGHT NOT TO HAVE ADDED THE INVESTMENT MADE A S APPLICATION MONEY FOR SOURCES OF CADILA HEALTH CARE . 8) THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE AD DITION OF RS.30000/- BEING DEPOSIT IN BANK A/C. OF SMT.NIRUBE N S.DARJI ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME IS UNEXPLAINED. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS), IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES OF THE CASE, OUGHT NOT TO HAVE ADDED THE AMOUNT OF RS.3000 0/- DEPOSITED IN BANK A/C OF SMT.NIRUBEN S.DARJI. 9) THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE AD DITION OF RS.251433/- AFTER ADOPTING THE INFLOW AND OUTGOINGS WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE OPENING BALANCE IN CASH BOOK. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS), IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES OF THE CASE, OUGHT NOT TO HAVE ADDED THE AMOUNT OF RS.2514 33/- AND OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDER THE OPENING BALANCES. YOUR APPELLANT RESERVES TO HIMSELF THE RIGHT TO ALT ER, AMEND OR ADD TO THE EXISTING GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND ADVANC E FURTHER ARGUMENTS AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF APPEAL. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS MADE INVESTMENTS IN CASH IN HIS NAME AND IN HIS FAMILY M EMBERS. ON RECEIVING INFORMATION FROM DDIT (INVESTIGATION) BAR ODA, THE CASE WAS REOPENED U/S.147 OF THE IT ACT, 1961 AND THE ASSESS EE WAS REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN THE SAID INVESTMENTS. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITT ED EXPLANATION WHICH ITA NO.3167/AHD /2008 SHANTILAL M. DARJI VS. ITO ASST.YEAR - 2000-01 - 4 - WERE NOT FOUND SATISFACTORY AND, ACCORDINGLY, THE A SSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.1,85,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTM ENT U/S.69 AND RS.1,10,000/- U/S.68 OF THE ACT, TOTALLING TO RS.2, 95,000/-. 2.1. BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HE CASH-FLOW STATEMENT AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LD.CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE SAID INVESTMENTS ARE UN EXPLAINED TO THE EXTENT OF RS.2,51,433/- AS PER HIS ORDER CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH NO.4.3. 3. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE CASH-FLOW STATEMENT SUBMITTED BEFORE HIM IN A RIGHT PERSPECTIVE AND, THEREFORE, PRAYED FOR CONSIDERING THE SAID CASH-FLOW STATEMENT AND ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WH EREIN ALL THE SOURCES WERE STOOD EXPLAINED. 3.1. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD.DR OF THE REVENUE RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED T HE FACTS OF THE CASE. ON PERUSAL OF THE ORDERS OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND THAT OF THE AO, IT IS FOUND THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED THE CASH-FLOW STA TEMENT, BUT NOT IN ITS ENTIRETY FOR THE REASONS MENTIONED IN HIS ORDER. T HERE ARE CERTAIN ERRORS IN THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), I.E. THE ASSESSEE HA S SUBMITTED THAT INVESTMENTS OF RS.20,000/- MADE ON 24/02/2000 IN KV P, THE SAID AMOUNT WAS INVESTED OUT OF CASH AVAILABLE WITH SMT.NIRUBEN S.DARJI WHO HAD ENCASHED THE KVP OF RS.20,000/- ON 18/02/2000 WHICH WERE PURCHASED IN THE YEAR 1994. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE SAID SOURCES OF ITA NO.3167/AHD /2008 SHANTILAL M. DARJI VS. ITO ASST.YEAR - 2000-01 - 5 - CASH AVAILABLE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THE LD.C IT(A) IS MODIFIED TO THIS EXTENT AND THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW A RELIE F OF RS.20,000/- AS DIRECTED HEREINABOVE. 4.1. AS REGARDS, THE SOURCE OF INCOME, SMT.NIRUBEN S.DARJI HAS STATED THAT SHE HAS BEEN EARNING A SUM OF RS.20,000/- FROM TAILORING WORK AND SHE HAS RECEIVED A SUM OF RS.10,000/- PER ANNUM FRO M HER RELATIVES ON SOCIAL OCCASIONS. THE SAID SUBMISSION CANNOT BE RE JECTED OUTRIGHTLY SINCE A LADY NORMALLY KEEPS SOME CASH AS STREEDHAN WHIC H IS RECEIVED BY HER FROM HER RELATIVES ON DIFFERENT OCCASIONS AND, ACCO RDINGLY IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE LD .CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN TOTALLY REJECTING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSE E. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, IT WIL L BE REASONABLE TO ADMIT THE SOURCE OF CASH AVAILABLE WITH SMT.NIRUBEN S.DAR JI AMOUNTING TO RS.75,000/- CONTRIBUTED TO THE INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO CONSIDER THE SAID SUM OF RS.75,000/- APART FROM RS.20,000/- MENTIONED HEREINABOVE AND AL LOW THE RELIEF ACCORDINGLY. THUS, ALL THE GROUNDS RAISED IN ASSES SEES APPEAL ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. 5. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLO WED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE SD/- ( .. ) ( B.P. JAIN ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 19/ 09S/2013 60.., $.../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS ITA NO.3167/AHD /2008 SHANTILAL M. DARJI VS. ITO ASST.YEAR - 2000-01 - 6 - 3 , )/7 87%/ 3 , )/7 87%/ 3 , )/7 87%/ 3 , )/7 87%// COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. &( / THE APPELLANT 2. )*&( / THE RESPONDENT. 3. !! / -9 / CONCERNED CIT 4. -9() / THE CIT(A)-VI, BARODA 5. 7$:; )/ , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. ;<# =. / GUARD FILE. 3- 3- 3- 3- / BY ORDER, *7/ )/ //TRUE COPY// > >> >/ // / ! ! ! ! ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION 19.9.13 (DICTATION-PAD 6 PAGES ATTACHED WITH THE FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 19.9.13 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 5. DATE ON WHICH FAIR ORDER PLACED BEFORE OTHER MEMBER 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S. 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER