Shri Nilesh Ishwarbhai Patel, Ahmedabad V. The Dy.CIT (Intl. Taxn. ), Vadodara

ITA 3526/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9352 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 17-07-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 16-12-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANTOSH KARNAMI
• Assessee Lawyers: PF JAIN
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA.NO.3526/AHD/2015 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2010-2011 NILESH ISHWARBHAI PATEL C/O. VISHVESH A. SHAH & CO 316, ABHISHEK PLAZA B/H. NAVGUJARAT COLLEGE INCOME TAX, AHMEDABAD 380 058. PAN : ASAPP 1362 L VS DCIT (INTL.TAXATION) VADODARA. ! / (APPELLANT) '# ! / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P.F. JAIN, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI SANTOSH KARNAMI, SR.DR / DATE OF HEARING : 23/02/2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 23/02/2016 $%/ O R D E R THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AROSE FROM ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A)-13, AHMEDABAD DATED 26.10.2015 FOR THE ASSTT.YEAR 2010- 2011. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN L AW AND FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 5,61,650/- U/S. 68 ON THE BASIS OF AIR INFORMATION AND BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WITH OUT PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE FACTS ADDUCED BY THE APPELLANT. 2. HE HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN N OT PROPERLY CONSIDERING AND APPRECIATING THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 12/10/2015 FURNISHED TO HIM ALONG WITH VARIOUS DOCUMENTS WHICH INCLUDED ITA NO.3526/AHD/2015 2 STATEMENT SHOWING CASH DEPOSITS AND WITHDRAWALS IN THE BANK STATEMENT AND MAKING WRONG OBSERVATION OF NON FURNISHING CASH FLOW. 3. HE HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING TOTA L MISTAKE OF 80,000/- POINTED OUT IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION AND THE FACT THAT CASH DEPOSIT IS COVERED BY THE CASH WITHDRAWALS IN THE BANK FOR THE REASONS BEST KNOWN TO HIM. 4. HE HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT PROVISI ON OF SECTION 68 WERE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE IN AS M UCH AS THAT NO BOOKS WERE MAINTAINED. 5. ON THE FACTS NO INTEREST U/S. 234-A, 234-B AND 234-C OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN LEVIED AS THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT HAVING TAX ABLE INCOME. 6. ON THE FACTS THE ADDITION OF RS.5,61,650/- MADE BY THE A.O. OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN DELETED. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S DEPOSITED CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.17,61,650/- IN THE BANK ACCOUNT, BUT THE ASSE SSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN RS.5,61,650/- AS DEPOSITS TO THE SATISFACTION OF TH E AO WHICH WAS ADDED UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ACTION OF THE AO WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD.CIT(A). 4. THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD.AR IS THAT THE SAID RS.5 ,61,650/- IS OUT OF SAVINGS OF THE ASSESSEE AND WERE LYING IN CASH. TH E ASSESSEE EARLIER WAS AN LIC AGENT AND AGRICULTURIST AND DEPOSITED THE CASH IN THE BANK ACCOUNT FOR GOING ABROAD. 5. THE LD.DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 6. I HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE F ACTS OF THE CASE. THE UNDISPUTED FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE IS THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF RS.5,61,650/- WHICH HAS BEEN STATED TO BE OUT OF SAVINGS. WHERE SUCH SAVINGS HAVE BEEN KEPT, HAS NO T BEEN EXPLAINED BEFORE ITA NO.3526/AHD/2015 3 AUTHORITIES BELOW OR BEFORE ME. IN THE CIRCUMSTANC ES, AND FACTS OF THE CASE, ALL THE ARGUMENTS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE RELIAN CE ON DECISIONS OF VARIOUS COURT OF LAW, ARE NOT GOING TO RESCUE THE ASSESSEE, AND ACCORDINGLY, I FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), THUS, ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 23 RD FEBRUARY, 2016 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- ( B.P. JAIN ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 23/02/2016