Smt. Priti Rajesh Thakkar, Vadodara V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(3), Vadodara

ITA 3537/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0487 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-10-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 10-08-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 17-12-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: D K PARIKH
• Keywords: Salary income; Initiation of penalty proceedings
• Section: 234B; 69

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA.NO.3537/AHD/2015 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2011-12 SMT.PRITI RAJESH THAKKAR A-4, MAHALAXMI SHREENATH COMPLEX HIGH TENSION ROAD SUBHANPURA VADODARA. VS ITO, WARD - 8(3) VADODARA. ! / (APPELLANT) '# ! / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI D.K. PARIKH, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI SATISH SOLANKI, SR.DR / DATE OF HEARING : 10/08/2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 06/10/2016 $%/ O R D E R ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A )-4, BARODA DATED 26.8.2015 PASSED FOR THE ASTT.YEAR 2011-12. 2. SOLITARY SUBSTANTIAL GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE I S THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.10.75 LAKHS WHIC H WAS ADDED BY THE AO WITH THE AID OF SECTION 69 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1 961. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME ON 29.7.2011 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.1, 87,360/-. SHE HAS SHOWN HER INCOME FROM SALARY, INTEREST AND OTHER SOURCES. THE LD.AO ON SCRUTINY OF THE ACCOUNTS FOUND THAT SHE HAD DEPOSITED A SUM OF RS.28,02,500/- ON VARIOUS DATES INTO HER BANK ACCOUNT. HE DIRECTED THE ASSES SEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF ITA NO.3537/AHD/2015 2 DEPOSITS. SHE CONTENDED THAT HER FATHER HAS NO MAL E CHILD. HE HAS GIVEN HER A SUM OF RS.18,55,000/-. HE IS ALSO A RETIRED GOVERN MENT EMPLOYEE AND AGRICULTURIST. REST OF THE AMOUNTS DEPOSITED IN TH E BANK WAS FROM THE PREVIOUS WITHDRAWALS. THE AO HAS ACCEPTED SOURCE OF RS.18.55 LAKHS WHICH WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY HER FATHER. BUT HE DID NOT ACCEPT THE REMAINING AMOUNTS, AND ACCORDINGLY MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.10.75 LAKHS. APPEAL TO THE LD.CIT(A) DID NOT BRING ANY RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE LD.REPRESENTATIVES, I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED ON RECOR D COPIES OF THE BANK STATEMENTS, CASH FLOW STATEMENTS. IN BRIEF, SHE HA S THREE BANK ACCOUNTS VIZ. INDUSIND BANK, DHANLAXMI BANK AND CENTRAL BANK OF I NDIA. SHE HAS DEPOSITED A SUM OF RS.13,85,500/-, RS.10,35,000/- A ND RS.3,82,000/- IN THESE THREE BANKS RESPECTIVELY. SHE HAS EXPLAINED THE SO URCE AS THE FUNDS RECEIVED FROM HER FATHER AND THE FUNDS ALREADY WITHDRAWN FRO M THE BANK ACCOUNT. FOR EXAMPLE, IN DHANLAXMI BANK SHE HAS DEPOSITED A SUM OF RS.10.35 LAKHS DURING THE YEAR. SHE SUBMITTED THAT SHE RECEIVED A SUM OF RS.5,40,000/- FROM HER FATHER AND RS.4,95,000/- REPRESENTING HER PREVI OUS WITHDRAWALS. AS FAR AS FUNDS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE FATHER IS CONCERNED, THE AO DID NOT DISPUTE. HE DISPUTED THE CLAIM OF PREVIOUS WIT HDRAWALS. COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT OF DHANALAXMI BANK IS AVAILABLE AT P AGE NO.15-16 OF THE PAPER BOOK. A PERUSAL OF THE BANK STATEMENT WOULD INDICA TE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED A SUM OF RS.1.00 LAKH ON 24.9.2010 AND AG AIN RS.1.00 LAKH ON 25 TH AND 27 TH SEPT., 2010. SHE WITHDREW A SUM OF RS.2.00 LAKHS ON 27 TH SEPT. AND DEPOSITED A SUM OF RS.2.40 LAKHS ON THAT VERY DATE. SIMILARLY, THERE ARE SUFFICIENT WITHDRAWALS. NOW THE CASE OF THE ASSESS EE IS THAT SHE HAS WITHDRAWN THE AMOUNT AND RE-DEPOSITED. THE AO HAS RAISED DOUBT ABOUT THIS BEHAVIOR OF THE ASSESSEE. HE WAS OF THE OPINION TH AT WHY SOMEBODY WOULD WITHDRAW MONEY FROM BANK AND RE-DEPOSIT IT. TO MY MIND, THE AO CANNOT ITA NO.3537/AHD/2015 3 EXPECT AS TO HOW AN INDIVIDUAL SHOULD BEHAVE, AND W HY HE WOULD BEHAVE IN A PARTICULAR MANNER. IT WAS ALWAYS SUBJECT TO A SITU ATION. ONCE THE ASSESSEE DEMONSTRATE WITHDRAWAL OF SUFFICIENT FUNDS WHICH IS MORE THAN THE AMOUNTS DEPOSITED, THEN, THE AO SHOULD NOT DOUBT THE SOURCE UNLESS HE POSSESSED SOME MATERIAL INDICATING THE FACT THAT AMOUNTS ALLEGED T O HAVE BEEN WITHDRAWN WAS USED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR OTHER PURPOSE. IN VIEW OF THIS SITUATION, I ALLOW GROUND NO.1 AND 2 OF THE APPEAL AND DELETE ADDITION OF RS.10,75,000/-. 5. AS FAR AS OTHER GROUNDS ARE CONCERNED, IN THESE GROUNDS, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED CHARGING OF INTEREST UNDER SECTIONS, 234B AND 234C AND INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271 (1)(C) OF THE ACT. AS FAR AS CHARGING OF INTEREST IS CONCERNED, THE SAME IS CONS EQUENTIAL IN NATURE. INITIATION PENALTY PROCEEDING IS CONCERNED, IT IS A N ISSUE, WHICH IS PREMATURE AT THIS STAGE, AND CANNOT BE ADJUDICATED. HENCE, THES E ARE REJECTED. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 6 TH OCTOBER, 2016 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 06/10/2016