Shri Bhanjibhai N.Bhadresada, Padra V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-3(1), Baroda

ITA 447/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 44720514 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 03-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 17-02-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PARVEEN KUMAR SR DR
• Assessee Lawyers: M K PATEL
• Section: 147

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ././ ./ ITA NOS. 446 & 447/AHD/2012 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 & 2006-07 BHANJIBHAI N. BHADRESADA C/O. SHREE MARUTI POLE INDUSTRIES, MUKAM, MASAR TAL: PADRA PAN : ADQPB 8704 M VS. ITO, WARD-3(1), BARODA / // / (APPELLANT) ! ! ! ! / // / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE(S) BY : SHRI M.K. PATEL, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI PARVEEN KUMAR, SR. DR. '# $ %&'/ // / DATE OF HEARING : 03/08/2015 () $ %&' / // / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 07/08/2015 *+ *+ *+ *+/ // / O R D E R PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT: THESE ARE THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TWO SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEALS)-II, BARODA, BOTH DATED 02.11.2011, FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 AND 2006-07. 2. THE ONLY GROUND RAISED IN THESE APPEALS BY THE A SSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS.2,51,000/- AND RS.1,65,800/- FOR ASS ESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 AND 2006-07 RESPECTIVELY. 3. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND CERTAIN CRE DITS IN THE FIRM M/S. SHREE MARUTI POLE INDUSTRIES IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS ONE OF THE PARTNERS OF THE SAID FIRM. ON FURTHER IN VESTIGATION, THE ASSESSING ITA NOS. 446 & 447 AHD 2012 BHANJIBHAI N BHADRESADA VS. ITO FOR AY 2005-06 & 2006-07 2 OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE DEPOSITED THE SUM O F RS.2,51,000/- ON VARIOUS DATES IN CASH DURING THE ACCOUNTING YEAR RE LEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AND RS.1,65,800/- DURING THE ACCOUNTIN G YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICE R ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF SUCH DEPOSITS, THEN IT WAS CL AIMED THAT THE ABOVE DEPOSITS WERE MADE OUT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. HOW EVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RECORDED THE FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR BOTH THE YEARS IN WHICH NO AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS DISCLOSED. NO OTHER EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE AGRICULTURAL IN COME WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, HE MADE TH E ADDITION OF RS.2,51,000/- AND RS.1,65,800/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2005-06 AND 2006-07 RESPECTIVELY. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE SAME. THE ASSESSEE, AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), IS IN APPEA L BEFORE US. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 ON 20.04.2006 AND THE RETURN OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ON 31.03. 2007. NO AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS DISCLOSED IN BOTH THE YEARS. THE ASSESSM ENTS WERE ACCEPTED FOR BOTH THE YEARS U/S 143(1). THEREAFTER, THE CASES WE RE RE-OPENED U/S 147 BECAUSE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING OF THE FIRM M/S. SHREE MARUTI POLE INDUSTRIES, IT WAS FOUND THAT THERE WAS INTRODUCTION OF CAPITAL BY THE ASSESSEE IN BOTH THE YEARS. DURING THE COURS E OF RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT IN M/S. SHREE MARUTI POLE INDUSTRIES, THE A SSESSEE FOR THE FIRST TIME CLAIMED THAT IT HAD AGRICULTURAL INCOME. EXCEPT TH IS CLAIM, NO OTHER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS PRODUCED ITA NOS. 446 & 447 AHD 2012 BHANJIBHAI N BHADRESADA VS. ITO FOR AY 2005-06 & 2006-07 3 EITHER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR CIT(A) OR EV EN BEFORE US. IF THE ASSESSEE HAD AGRICULTURAL INCOME, HE OUGHT TO HAVE DISCLOSED THE SAME IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR BOTH THE YEARS. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WHICH IS SUSTAINED AND THE ASSESSEES APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 7 TH AUGUST, 2015 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (S. S. GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER (G.D. AGRAWAL) VICE-PRESIDENT AHMEDABAD; DATED 07/08/2015 BIJU T., PS *+ $ %, -*,% *+ $ %, -*,% *+ $ %, -*,% *+ $ %, -*,%/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. ! / THE RESPONDENT. 3. % '. / CONCERNED CIT 4. '. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 5. ,12 % , , / D R, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 24 5# / GUARD FILE . *+' *+' *+' *+' / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY 6 66 6/ // / 7 7 7 7 ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD