Ashaben Kanubhai Patel, Ahmedabad V. The ITO, Ward-7(2)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 38/AHD/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3805 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-08-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC-3
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 06-02-2022
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: MEHUL K. PATEL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment
• Section: 68; 69

Judgement Text

ITA No.38/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2016-17 Page 1 of 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC-3” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, VICE PRESIDENT AND Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.38/Ahd/2022 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Ashaben Kanubhai Patel, vs. The Income Tax Officer, 214, Piplawali Khadiki, Ward- 7(2)(1), Ahmedabad. Near Jain Derasar, Naroda Gam, Ahmedabad – 382 330. [PAN – APFPP 7818 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Mehul K. Patel, AR Respondent by : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 29.07.2022 Date of pronouncement : 24.08.2022 O R D E R PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER : This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 16.12.2021 passed by the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under :- “1. That on facts, and in law, the learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in confirming the addition of Rs.75,310/- made u/s.69 of the Act in respect of payment of Stamp/Registration Charges. 2. That, on facts, and in law, the learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in confirming the addition of Rs.5,00,000/- made u/s.68 of the Act in respect of cash deposited in bank account.” 3. Assessee filed return of income on 15.09.2016 declaring income at Rs.3,67,280/-. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee and its co-owner purchased immovable property jointly and registered the same with Sub-registrar, ITA No.38/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2016-17 Page 2 of 3 Ahmedabad. The immovable property was purchased jointly by nine members having different shares. The share of the assessee in the said land was 5%, which comes to Rs.12,75,000/-. The share of stamp duty and registration charges was of Rs.75,310/-. Thus, the total share of the assessee was Rs.13,50,310/-. The assessee submitted before the Assessing Officer that the assessee received amount from Uday Bhatt and Mitesh Patel for the payment of the said land and confirmation of account along with bank statement and copy of income tax return was placed on record. The Assessing Officer held that on verification of the pass book submitted it was found that assessee has deposited cash amounting to Rs.5,00,000 in her Bank Account on 28.09.2015 and on the same date amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was transferred to CC-789. Thus, the same was not expenses related to source of income and thus made an addition of Rs.5,00,000/ under Section 68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer further made addition of Rs.13,50,310/- under Section 69 thereby treating the payment of purchase of immovable property as unexplained investment. 4. The Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.75,00,310/- made under Section 69 of the Act in respect of payment of stamp duty/ registration charges. As regards to ground no.2, Ld. AR submitted that the addition of Rs.5,00,000/- made under Section 68 of the Act in respect of cash deposit in bank account was properly explained to the Assessing Officer and the same was not taken into account by the Assessing Officer as well as by the CIT(A). 5. The Ld. DR relied upon the Assessment Order and the order and of the CIT(A). 6. We have head both parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the Stamp Duty/Registration charges has been paid by the assessee as per the share was not disputed by the Assessing Officer. The explanation given by the assessee before the Assessing Officer as well as the evidences produced before the Assessing Officer was totally ignored by the Assessing Officer as well as by the CIT(A). Therefore, the addition to the extent of Rs.75,310/- was not correct, hence ground no.1 is allowed ITA No.38/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2016-17 Page 3 of 3 7. As regards to ground no.2 related to addition of Rs.5,00,000/- made under Section 68 of the Act, the assessee has given the details in respect of cash in hand out of the savings from tuition income and in respect of savings related to household expenses. Thus, the explanation was properly given by the assessee and the same cannot be treated as unexplained cash deposit under Section 68 of the Act. Hence, ground no.2 is allowed. Appeal is thus allowed. 8. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 24 th day of August, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (P.M. JAGTAP) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) Vice President Judicial Member Ahmedabad, the 24 th day of August, 2022 PBN/* Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPY Assistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ahmedabad benches, Ahmedabad