Rajeshbhai Madhabhai Pansuriya, RAJKOT-GUJARAT V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), RAJKOT-GUJARAT

ITA 356/RJT/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 35624914 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 27-09-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J B JHAVERI D R
• Assessee Lawyers: CHETAN N ASODARIYA

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBULAL: RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT. BEFORE SHRI T. K. SHARMA JM AND SHRI B. R. JAIN AM ITA NO. 356/RJT/2013 / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. RAJESHBHAI MADHABHAI PANSURIYA, PROP. M/S SHIV SHAKTI TRADERS, TULSI PARK, NANA MAVA MAIN ROAD, RAJKOT. PAN : AMIPP2892H ( / APPELLANT V/S THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(3), RAJKOT / RESPONDENT ! ' #$ / ASSESSEE BY SHRI CHETAN N. ASODARIYA, ADV. % ! ' #$ / REVENUE BY SHRI J.B. JHAVERI, D.R. # & ' ! ( / DATE OF HEARING 08/01/2014 ) ! ( / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 09/01/2014 / ORDER PER B. R. JAIN, A. M. : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATE D 30/7/2013 OF DR. RAJEEV RANADE, LEARNED CIT(A)-I, RAJKOT IN SEVE RAL GROUNDS, CHALLENGES THE SUSTENANCE OF ADDITION OF RS. 12,79, 751/-. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE RETURNED INCOME OF RS. 1,08,972/- FROM RETAIL TRADING. THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAD INFORMATION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED RS. 12,29,500/- IN HIS B ANK ACCOUNT WITH ICICI BANK LTD.. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FINDING THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS. 12,79,751/-, WHICH WAS NOT REFLECTED IN HIS BALANCE SHEET REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THIS AMOUNT BE NOT TREATED AS HIS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSE D SOURCES. THE ASSESSEE VIDE HIS REPLY DATED 18/11/2010 STATED THA T THE CASH DEPOSITS REPRESENT SAVINGS OF HIS FATHER, WHO IS AN AGRICULT URIST AND DERIVES INCOME ITA 356/RJT/2013 2 FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY. HIS FATHER IS AN ILLITE RATE AND OLD PERSON AND DOES NOT HAVE ANY BANK ACCOUNT OR D-MAT ACCOUNT. THE SAI D MONEY DEPOSITED, WAS HIS FATHERS MONEY KEPT WITH THE ASSESSEE FOR I NVESTING IN SHARES ON HIS BEHALF AND ACCORDINGLY, DEPOSITED IN THE SAID B ANK ACCOUNT. THE COPIES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND HOLDINGS AND SALE BILLS OF AGR ICULTURAL PRODUCE WERE ALSO LAID ON RECORD OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER BEING NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION, PROCEEDED TO SUSTAI N THE ADDITION OF RS. 12,79,751/- TO THE DECLARED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. 3. THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL PLACED A PAPER BOOK RUNNI NG FROM PAGES 1 TO 66 ON RECORD AND A WRITTEN NOTE STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THAT MONEY BELONGS TO HIS FATHER. THIS MONEY WAS AV AILABLE WITH HIM FROM HIS AGRICULTURAL INCOME. PROOF OF AGRICULTURAL LA ND HOLDING AND EARNING INCOME THEREFROM WAS GIVEN TO THE LOWER AUTHORITIES . NO ADVERSE FINDING HAS BEEN RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THIS ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MISTOOK THESE DEPOSITS AS A LOAN WHEREAS THE MONEY KEPT IN THE BANK WAS HIS FATHERS MONEY AND KEPT FO R A SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF MAKING INVESTMENT IN SHARES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT VERIFY THE EXPLANATION AND THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE S FATHER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO GOES TO CONFIRM THE CLAIM MADE BY THE A SSESSEE, EVEN THOUGH, THE SAME WAS ERRONEOUSLY NOT ADMITTED AS EVIDENCE B Y THE LD. CIT(A). 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D.R. CONTENDS THAT TH E ASSESSEE WAS NOT HAVING ANY AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE AGRICULTURAL IN COME BELONGS TO HIS FATHER REPRESENTING SAVINGS OF SEVERAL YEARS BUT NO PROOF OF SUCH SAVINGS HAS BEEN LAID ON RECORD. THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE ASSES SEES FATHER WAS NOT ADMITTED AS AN EVIDENCE BY THE LD. CIT(A). IT HAS, THEREFORE, BEEN CONTENDED THAT THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEX PLAINED DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT NOT DISCLOSED IN HIS BALANCE SHEET FILED WITH THE RETURN, NEEDS TO BE CONFIRMED. ITA 356/RJT/2013 3 5. IN REJOINDER THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL CONTENDS THA T THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION WAS CAPABLE OF VERIFICATION. THE LD. CI T(A) WAS UNDER OBLIGATION TO HAVE ADMITTED THE AFFIDAVIT AS THIS W AS NOT GIVING RISE TO A NEW CLAIM BEFORE HIM. RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED ON THE J UDGMENT BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SMT. PRABH AWATI S. SHAH VS. CIT 231 ITR 1 (BOM). 6. HEARD PARTIES WITH REFERENCE TO MATERIAL ON RECO RD. THE ASSESSEE IS FOUND TO HAVE OPENED A BANK ACCOUNT FOR MAKING DEPO SITS OF HIS FATHERS MONEY AS THE SAME WERE REQUIRED TO BE UTILIZED FOR A SPECIFIC PURPOSE. HIS FATHER BEING AN AGRICULTURIST AND RESIDING IN A VIL LAGE, DID NOT HAVE ANY BANK ACCOUNT OF HIS OWN NOR DID HE HAVE ANY D-MAT ACCOUN T. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO LAID ON RECORD SUFFICIENT PROOF OF HIS FATHER S AGRICULTURAL LAND HOLDING AND EARNING OF INCOME BY PRODUCING SALE INVOICES OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE EXPLANATION WITH OUT MAKING ANY VERIFICATION. UNDER THE PECULIAR FACTS, REASONABLE EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT HAD COME ON RECORD AND ONUS THAT LAY UPON THE ASSESSEE STOOD DISCHARGED. FAILURE TO MAKE VERIFICATION OF ASSESSE ES EXPLANATION, ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE. THE ADDITION SO MADE, IS THEREFORE, DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. GROUNDS RAISED IN APPEAL, ACCORDINGLY, STA ND ALLOWED. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL BY ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09/01/2014. SD/- SD/- ( T. K. SHARMA ) ( B. R. JAI N ) #*% /JUDICIAL MEMBER $( #*% / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *$+ ,*-/ ORDER DATE 09/01/2014 /RAJKOT *RANJAN / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. /APPELLANT- RAJESHBHAI MADHABHAI PANSURIYA, RAJKOT . 2. /RESPONDENT- THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), RAJ KOT ITA 356/RJT/2013 4 3. #-2- & 3 / CIT-I, RAJKOT. 4. & 3 - / CIT (A)-I, RAJKOT. 5. 789 , , / DR, ITAT, RAJKOT 6. 9; <= / GUARD FILE. *$+ #$ / BY ORDER , TRUE COPY PRIVATE SECRETARY, , INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT.