Smt.Shobhnaben Bhupendrabhai , Ahmedabad V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-15(4), Ahmedabad

ITA 3398/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6294 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 07-12-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MEENAKSHI DOHARI JT
• Keywords: Gift; Income from undisclosed sources; Salary income; Principle of natural justice; Source of fund

Judgement Text

, CKH CKHCKH CKH IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER !# I.T.A. NO.3398/AHD/2015 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12) SMT. SHOBHNABEN BHUPENDRABHAI, 2, RAJMUGUT SOCIETY, NARANPURA CHAR RASTA, AHMEDABAD 380 009 # VS. ITO, WARD 15(4), AHMEDABAD. $ # % & # PAN/GIR NO. : ACIPB 1229 L ( !$' / APPELLANT ) .. ( ($' # RESPONDENT ) !$') # APPELLANT BY : SHRI TUSHAR HEMANI, A.R. ($'*) / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MEENAKSHI DOHARI, JT.CIT + ,*-. / DATE OF HEARING 18/01/2018 /012*-. / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 22/01/2018 3# O R D E R PER MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-4, AHMEDABAD D ATED 12/03/2015 FOR CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.6,79,9 00/- U/S.69A OF THE ACT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR (A.Y.) 2011-12, ON THE FOLL OWING GROUNDS: 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS I N CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.6,79,900/ - U/S 69A OF THE ACT. 2. BOTH THE POWER AUTHORITIES HAVE PASSED THE ORD ERS WITHOUT PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE FACTS AND THAT THEY FURTH ER ERRED IN ITA NO.3398/AHD /2015 SMT. SHOBHNABEN BHUPENDRABHAI VS. ITO A.Y. 2011-12. - 2 - GROSSLY IGNORING VARIOUS SUBMISSION, EXPLANATIONS A ND INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT FROM TIME TO TIME WHICH OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BEFORE PASSING THE IM PUGNED ORDER. THE ACTION OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IS CLEAR BREACH OF LAW AND PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND THEREFORE DES ERVES TO BE QUASHED. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING ACTION OF LD. AO IN LEVYING INTEREST U/S 234A/B/C/D OF THE ACT. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACT S IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO IN INITIATING PENALTY U/S.271( 1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER, ED IT, DELETE, MODIFY OR CHANGE ALL OR ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEA L AT THE TIME OF OR BEFORE THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 2. THERE IS A DELAY OF 127 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEA L. APPELLANT HAS FILED AN AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF HER CONTENTION. WE ARE AGREE WITH THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT, HENCE DELAY IS CONDONED. 3. THE RELEVANT FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERI ALS ON RECORD ARE AS UNDER:- DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS RUNNING AND OPERATING ONE BANK ACCOUNT NO.20291 1110000011 WITH BANK OF INDIA. ON PERUSAL OF THE SA ID BANK ACCOUNT, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE SUBSTANTIAL CASH DEPOSITS IN THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE PEAK AMOUNT OF SUCH C ASH DEPOSITS IS WORKED OUT AT RS.10,06,900/-. THE ASSESSEE WAS CALL ED UPON TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES OF SUCH CASH DEPOSITS DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE SAME IS REPRODUCED HERE UNDER: ITA NO.3398/AHD /2015 SMT. SHOBHNABEN BHUPENDRABHAI VS. ITO A.Y. 2011-12. - 3 - 'ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN YOUR CASE FOR THE A.Y. 2011-12 ARE UNDER PROCESS AND DURING THE SCRUTINY, IT HAS BEEN OBSERV ED THAT IN YOUR BANK ACCOUNT NO. 202911110000011 WITH BANK OF INDIA, SUB STANTIAL CASH HAS BEEN DEPOSITED DURING PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE A.Y. 2011-12. THE PEAK OF SUCH CASH DEPOSITED IN YOUR BANK ACCOUNT CO MES TO RS.10,08,900/- DURING F.Y. 2010-11. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF YOUR CASE, THE UNDERSIGNED IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE SATISFAC TORY EXPLANATION HAS NOT BEEN FURNISHED WITH REGARDS TO SOURCES OF SUCH CASH DEPOSITED. I, THEREFORE, PROPOSE TO ADD SUCH AMOUNT OF RS.10,08,9 00/- AS YOUR INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES, AS HAVE EARNED DURING THE F.Y. 2010-11. YOU ARE REQUESTED TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY SUCH ADDITION SHALL NOT BE MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12.' 3.1 THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED HER EXPLANATION VIDE LET TER DATED 24.12.2013, THE CONTENTION OF THE SUBMISSION IS REP RODUCE AS UNDER: THE OBSERVATION AND INFERENCE DRAWN IS WITHOUT TAK ING INTO ACCOUNT THE FACTUAL POSITION. THE ASSESSEE IS EMPLOYEE OF B ANK OF INDIA HAVING INCOME FROM SALARY AND INTEREST, THUS THERE ARE NO OTHER SOURCES OF INCOME. NOW WHATEVER THE ASSESSEE EARNS OR HER DAUG HTER EARNS AND WITHDRAWS FROM HER BANK ACCOUNT, AS A NATURAL COROL LARY, COMES TO FAMILY FUNDS AND SUCH FUNDS ARE THE SOURCES OF MAJO R DEPOSITS IN HER ACCOUNT. THE ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF CASH DEPOSITS WE RE RELATED TO THE AMOUNTS GIVEN AS GIFTS TO MY HANDICAPPED SON PREET. CLOSE FAMILY MEMBERS GIVEN TO HIM AT THE TIME OF HIS BIRTHDAY IN FEBRUARY,2010 OF RS.1,50,000/-. AS ON 01.04.2010 I WAS HAVING CASH OF RS.5,75,000/- AS OPENING CASH BALANCE, WHICH INCLUDES THE WITHDRA WALS IN F.Y.2009-10 BY THE BINOLI HER DAUGHTER OF RS.4,00,000/-. MY DAU GHTER HAD ALSO WITHDRAWN RS.4,50,000/-. THUS NEXUS OF CASH DEPOSIT ED ARE PROVED.' 3.2 BUT LD.AO WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.10,08,900/- U/ S. 69A OF THE ACT. 4. THEREAFTER, ASSESSEE PREFERRED FIRST STATUTORY A PPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE E. ITA NO.3398/AHD /2015 SMT. SHOBHNABEN BHUPENDRABHAI VS. ITO A.Y. 2011-12. - 4 - 5. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RELEVANT RECORD AND IMP UGNED ORDER. ADMITTEDLY, THERE WERE CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.10,08,90 0/- IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT. THE SOURCE OF MAJOR PART OF CASH DEPOSITS I.E. RS.8,50,000/- HAS BEEN EXPLAINED AS WITHDRAWALS FRO M THE BANK ACCOUNT OF UNMARRIED WORKING DAUGHTER. IN ORDER TO VERIFY, THIS CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT, APPELLANT WAS DIRECTED BY THE OFFICER OF THE DEPARTMENT TO SUBMIT BANK ACCOUNT COPIES OF THE DAUGHTER FOR THRE E YEARS. ON VERIFICATION OF THE ENTRIES IN HER BANK ACCOUNT, IT WAS NOTICED THAT SHE HAS WITHDRAWN ENTIRE AMOUNT OF CASH THROUGH ATM FACILIT Y. THERE WERE FREQUENT SMALL WITHDRAWAL RANGING INTO FEW THOUSAND RUPEES. SOMETIMES THERE ARE MANY CASH WITHDRAWAL IN THE SINGLE DAY. A PPELLANT HAD NOT SUBMITTED THE DETAIL OF INCOME EARNED BY HER DAUGHT ER. THE DAUGHTER OF THE APPELLANT HAS MADE SMALL WITHDRAWAL TOTALING TO RS.4.75 LAKHS AND RS.4.0 LAKHS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, W HEREAS THE CASH DEPOSITS HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR 2010-11. 6. WE JUST FAIL TO UNDERSTAND AS STATED BY THE LD. AR THAT APPELLANT AND HER DAUGHTER BOTH ARE WORKING IN BANK, IF ANY P ERSON IS WORKING IN THE BANK WHY THEY WILL KEEP SUCH A HUGE AMOUNT IN C ASH AT HOME. THEREFORE, THIS KIND OF EXPLANATION IS HARD TO BELI EVE. LD. AR STATED THAT APPELLANTS SISTER HAS GIVEN HER CASH OF RS.54,054/ - FOR CHARITY WORK AND FURTHER STATED THAT SHE DONATED RS.72,072/- THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE NO.447453 DATED 29/09/2010. WE CAN SEE THAT SAME IS REFLECTING IN THE ITA NO.3398/AHD /2015 SMT. SHOBHNABEN BHUPENDRABHAI VS. ITO A.Y. 2011-12. - 5 - BANK STATEMENT OF THE APPELLANT. FOR REST OF THE AM OUNT APPELLANT COULD NOT GIVE ANY PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION TO PROVE HER CAS E. 7. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE WOULD LIKE TO GIVE RELI EF OF RS.54,054/-, WHICH WAS GIVEN BY SISTERS OF THE APPELLANT FOR CHA RITY WORK AND REMAINING ADDITION IS CONFIRMED U/S.69A. 8. SO FAR AS GROUND NO.3 IS CONCERNED, AO IS DIRECT ED TO CALCULATE THE INTEREST AS PER LAW. 9. SO FAR AS GROUND NO.4 IS CONCERNED FOR REMAINING ABOVE SAID AMOUNT AO WILL TAKE NECESSARY ACTION AS PER LAW. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 22/01/2018 SD/- SD/- ( ) 4 5 ( N.K. BILLAIYA ) ( MAHAVIR PRASAD ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 22/01/2018 PRITI YADAV, SR. PS ITA NO.3398/AHD /2015 SMT. SHOBHNABEN BHUPENDRABHAI VS. ITO A.Y. 2011-12. - 6 - !'# $#! # COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. !$' / THE APPELLANT 2. ($' / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 67- + 8- / CONCERNED CIT 4. + 8- 4!5 / THE CIT(A)-4, AHMEDABAD. 5. 9:;-67 !.!672 ! / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. ;<=, # GUARD FILE. % & / BY ORDER, (9-- //TRUE COPY// '/& () ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION18/01/2018. 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 19/01/2018 3. OTHER MEMBER 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 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