The ITO, Ward-2(3), Baroda V. Shri Ramanlal Chhaganlal Hathi, Baroda

ITA 3209/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6544 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 03-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHRI SAMIR TEKRIWALA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Tax effect

Judgement Text

- 1 - IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH B AHMEDABAD BEFORE S/SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JM AND D.C.AGRAWAL, A M INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), BARODA. VS. SHRI RAMANLAL CHHAGANLAL HATHI, PROP. OF FORAM INVESTMENT SERVICES, 56, GAJANAND SOCIETY, MANJALPUR, BARODA. (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY :- SHRI SHRI SAMIR TEKRIWALA, SR.DR ASSESSEE BY:- NONE O R D E R PER D. C. AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE RAISING FOL LOWING GROUND:- (1) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION OF RS. 8,50,000/- MADE U/S 68 ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS TO RS.2,78,400/- WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAD NOT MAINTAINED CASH BOOK. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN ENTER TAINING FRESH EVIDENCE OF ABSTRACT OF CASH BOOK, WHICH WAS AN AFTER- THOUGHT TO EXPLAIN THE CASH DEPOSITS, DURING THE CO URSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS WHICH IS NOT ADMISSIBLE UNDER RULE 46A OF THE ACT. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE OF RS.5,71,600/-. HENCE THE TAX EFFECT IN THIS CASE IS LESS THAN RS.2 LACS. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. SO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SU BMISSIONS OF LD. DR AND ITA NO.3209/AHD/2010 ASST. YEAR :2005-06 ITA NO.3209/AHD/2010 ASST. YEAR 2005-06 2 GOING THROUGH THE MATERIALS ON RECORD, WE ARE OF TH E VIEW THAT THE DEPARTMENT OUGHT NOT HAVE FILED THE APPEAL. OUR VI EW IS SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION OF HON. DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CI T VS. MANGLAM RICINUS LTD. (2008) 174 TAXMAN 186 (DEL). AS THE AP PEAL SO FILED IS AGAINST THE EXECUTIVE INSTRUCTIONS WHICH ARE BINDIN G ON THE DEPARTMENT, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL IN LIMINE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 3/6/2011. SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (D.C.AGRAWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R AHMEDABAD, DATED : 3/6/2011. MAHATA/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1. THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE REVENUE. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS)- 4. THE CIT CONCERNS. 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY / ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT, AHMEDABAD ITA NO.3209/AHD/2010 ASST. YEAR 2005-06 3 1.DATE OF DICTATION 7/6/2011. 2.DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING MEMBER 13/6/2011.. 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 DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT .. 5.DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR .P.S./P.S 6.DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK .. 7.DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 8.THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSTT. REG ISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER 9.DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER..