Bhupatbhai Mohanbhai Makvana, Bhavnagar V. The ITO, Wad-1(9), Bhavnagar

ITA 416/AHD/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4537 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-12-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 09-10-2023
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 24-05-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: BHAVESH L. PUROHIT; MANOJKUMAR P GOHIL
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences
• Section: 144; 139; 142(1); 133(6); 69A

Judgement Text

ITA No.416/Ahd/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Page 1 of 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.416/Ahd/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Bhupatbhai Mohanbhai Makvana, Borda Road, Village: Borda, Taluka: Talaja, Distt. Bhavnagar – 364 130. [PAN – BTXPM 3766 Q] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1(9), Bhavnagar.. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Bhavesh L. Purohit, Advocate & Shri Manojkumar P Gohil, CA Revenue by Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. DR Da te o f He a r in g 10.10.2023 Da te o f P ro n o u n ce m e n t 22.12.2023 O R D E R This appeal is filed by the assessee against order dated 27.03.2023, passed by the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised the following ground of appeal :- “1. Invoking provisions of Section 69A. The Ld. CIT(A) state in the order in point no.20 “The appellant was caught at the wrong foot, when he tried to justify the source of cash deposit from cash withdrawal of Rs.28,52,000/-, from the fact that the said compensation of Rs.1,41,98,809/- was received in HDFC Bank account and from this, the appellant, being joint holder of land (with five more members), gave Rs.28,39,760/- each through RTGS/Cheque to other members and there was no cash withdrawal from this Bank Account. Hence, the source of cash deposit in Central Bank of India account No.3956929444 is proved incorrect.” The assessee has provided the Bank Statement to the learned AO and learned CIT(A) mentioning the fact that the assessee had withdrawn amount of Rs.28,52,000/-in bank statement it was ITA No.416/Ahd/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Page 2 of 4 mentioned that the amount was withdrawn, than also the learned AO and learned CIT(A) not considered the fact.” 3. The assessee is a Farmer. As per AIMS Module of ITBA Application, the assessee had deposited cash of Rs.2,00,000/- in his Bank account with Axis Bank, Mahuva Branch and Rs.10,00,000/- in Central Bank of India, Mahuva Branch during the period of demonetization i.e. from 09.11.2016 to 31.12.2016. The assessee was required to file his reply on online Portal and assessee replied that cash withdrawal of Rs.28,52,000/- for both the Banks. The reply of the assessee was not accepted as there was no supporting evidence. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee did not file his return of income for A.Y. 2017- 18 which is mandatory to file on or before the stipulated time prescribed under Section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The due date for filing return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 was 05.08.2017. Since the assessee failed to file the return of income as mandatory under Section 139 of the Act, notice under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 12.03.2018 was issued and served upon the assessee. In response to the notices issued earlier, the assessee filed manually reply to the Revenue Office on 02.07.2019 alongwith copies of Bank statements of Axis Bank, Central Bank of India and HDFC Bank, copy of Compulsory Land Acquisition Order issued by Competent Authority, National Highway Authority of India & Deputy Collector, Rajula dated 19.06.2016. On verification of the submission filed by the assessee, direction under Section 144A of the Act was sought from the Range. Show cause notice was issued on 0211.2019. The assessee filed reply dated 08.11.2019. After taking cognizance of the reply, the Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 133(6) of the Act to the Central Bank of India and Axis Bank on 16.05.2019 seeking Bank statement alongwith KYC of the assessee. After taking cognizance of all these details, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.20,30,000/- as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act and taxed under Section 115BBE of the Act at the rate of 60%. 4. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. ITA No.416/Ahd/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Page 3 of 4 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee was not given opportunity to explain his case before the Assessing Officer despite filing the Bank statement, copy of 7/12 for agricultural land and copy of certificate of compulsory acquisition of land issued by NHAI and DC Rajula, Amreli. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessment order is passed as ex-parte under Section 144 of the Act. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has withdrawn amount from Bank account of HDFC which was very much on record before the Assessing Officer to prove the source of cash in hand. The Ld. AR submitted that due to the compulsory acquisition of land, the assessee received compensation of Rs.1,41,98,809/- and the assessee has source of cash deposit during the demonetization period as the assessee took out Rs.20,30,000/- to that extent. The Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) has totally ignored the Bank account of the assessee and the withdrawal from HDFC bank. 6. The Ld. DR submitted that the assessee has two PANs and in fact the assessee has not explained the source of cash deposits during the assessment proceedings as well as before the CIT(A) with the documentary proof. The Ld. DR relied upon the Assessment Order and the order of the CIT(A). 7. Heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the assessee has explained that the assessee received compensation of Rs.1,41,98,809/- and the same was received in HDFC Bank account. The assessee being joint holder of land, gave Rs.28,39,760/- each through RTGS/Cheque to other members and there was no cash withdrawal from this Bank account. Hence, source of cash deposit in Central Bank of India was in fact from cash withdrawal which was incorrectly noted by the CIT(A) as there was no cash withdrawal. Thus, the assessee has proved that there was cash withdrawal from the genuine source and the assessee has validly deposited the said amount in another Bank account i.e. Central Bank of India and Axis Bank and thus the addition made under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act does not survive. As regards to the contention of the Ld. DR that the assessee is having two PANs, the same appears to be incorrect as the assessee has surrendered one PAN and has filed his return of income for the PAN which is validly held by ITA No.416/Ahd/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Page 4 of 4 the assessee. Thus, the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) was not justified in making the addition and confirming the same. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 22 nd December, 2023. Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) Judicial Member Ahmedabad, the 22 nd December, 2023 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