Bhaveshkumar Ranchhodbhai Gohel, Ahmedabad V. ITO, Ward-6(1)(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 456/AHD/2018

AI Insights

The case involves Bhaveshkumar Ranchhodbhai Gohel, an individual engaged in fabric job works, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Ahmedabad. The appeal arose from an assessment order for the Assessment Year 2013-14, where the Assessing Officer added substantial amounts as unexplained income and undisclosed sale receipts based on discrepancies between the income tax return and bank deposits. The assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanations or documentation to substantiate the sources of these deposits, leading to the additions under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the lower authorities' findings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 134556 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 2 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-05-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 12-02-2023
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 25-02-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Question of law; TDS
• Section: 68; 44AD; 80C; 143(3)

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद ᭠यायपीठ ‘A’ अहमदाबाद। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD ] ] BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.456/Ahd/2018 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Bhaveshkumar Ranchhodbhai Gohel, 56-965 Shivanand Nagar, Nagar Vel Hanuman Road, Ahmedabad-380024 Vs ITO Ward-6(1)(2), Ahmedabad [PAN No. :ALNPG3627P] अपीलाथȸ/ (Appellant) Ĥ× यथȸ/ (Respondent) Appellant by : None Respondent by : Smt. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. DR स ु नवाई कȧ तारȣख/Date of Hearing: 13.02.2022 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख /Date of Pronouncement: 03.05.2022 आदेश/O R D E R PER T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal is filed by the assessee as against the appellate order dated 26.12.2017 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-6, Ahmedabad arising out of the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “the Act”) relating to the Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The brief facts of the case is the assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of Fabric Job Works. For the Assessment Year 2013-14 the assessee filed his Return of Income admitting total income of Rs. 7,10,780/-. This return was filed under the provisions of Section 44AD of the Act, declaring total turnover at 90,66,233/-. ITA No.456/Ahd/2018 A.Y. 2013-14 2 As per AIR information the assessee deposited cash of Rs. 85,72,000/- in AXIS Bank Account, Rs. 11,15,000/- in Bank of India and Rs. 6,01,000/- in HDFC bank. On verification of the above bank accounts there was huge amount of cash of Rs. 2,82,04,892/- were found to be deposited during the year. The assessee was asked to explain the cash deposits and file the details of nature and source of cash deposits alognwith relevant documents, confirmation, address of the parties, PAN, etc. In reply the assessee stated that he is not maintaining the books of accounts, since his turnover is less than 100 lakhs that the assessee could not explain the cash deposited from the various parties and also not provided any confirmation, address, PAN, Identity and existence of the parties. In the absence of any details from the assessee, the Assessing Officer invoked Section 68 and added Rs. 2,82,04,892/- as the unexplained income of the assessee. The Assessing Officer was also made an addition under undisclosed sale receipts of Rs. 22,33,895/- being the difference of turnover submitted by the assessee in the return of income and in his books of account. Thus, the Assessing Officer demanded tax on the above incomes. 3. Aggrieved against the same the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that he is a small business man and he did not have financial facility from any bank or financial institution. Therefore, to meet the needs of his business, he issued cheques to Samkit Corporation and received cash in lieu of this and deposited the same in the bank account. The assessee further submitted he has no information above these parties, but from his bank transaction the Assessing Officer can get information from these parties. The Ld. CIT(A) held that it is a settled question of law that Section 68 of the Act puts the initial onus upon of the tax ITA No.456/Ahd/2018 A.Y. 2013-14 3 payer. Thus, when the amount have been credited in the books of the assessee the onus is on the assessee / tax payer to proof the nature and source of the same to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer, as per Section 68 of the Act. In this case the assessee failed to explain the source of cash of Rs. 2,82,04,892/- deposited in the bank accounts. Even during the appellate proceedings the assessee has not produced any details or explanation about the cash deposits. Therefore, in the absence of any details the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs. 2,82,04,892/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act and thereby dismissed the ground raised by the assessee. AS regarding the second ground, undisclosed sale receipts the Ld. CIT(A) reduced the addition of Rs. 22,35,895/- to Rs. 17,15,593/- and upheld the same. Regarding the next two grounds of appeals namely non credit of full TDS of Rs. 1,07,806/- and not allowing deduction under Section 80C of the Act and loss from house property, the same were not been arising out of the assessment orders, but on revised computation of income filed by the assessee thus, these grounds were not adjudicated by the CIT(A) and dismissed the assessee’s appeal. 4. Aggrieved against the same, the assessee filed the present appeal under repeated the similar ground of appeal what was filed before the Ld. CIT(A). None appeared on behalf of the assessee in spite of service of notice to the assessee. Today is the 22 nd hearing of this appeal, even in the previous hearing, None appeared on behalf of the assessee and no request for adjournment sought by the assessee. However, a notarized affidavit dated 06.02.2021 is filed before us stating as follows: I Bhavesh Ranchhodbhai Gohel, residing at A1201, Shyam Villa Flats, New India Colony, Nikol, Ahmedabad. I hereby humbly state as under; ITA No.456/Ahd/2018 A.Y. 2013-14 4 (i) I was having business and carrying out job work of embroidery on dress. (ii) For business purpose, I used to borrow money from private financer (Sarffi) people, as per requirement of to buy threads/yarns. (iii) The money was borrowed from M/s Samkit Corporation and other parties. The said business was carried out Mr Ashishbhai, having office at Shop no.50, Dhanlaxmi Market, Gate No 3, Kalupur, Ahmedabad-380001. The money was borrowed interest rate @ 2% to 3% per month. The said money was borrowed against un named bearer Post Dated Cheques for one to two months. (iv) One every occasion whenever financer deposits the cheque in bank to clear the loan or money requires for business purposes, if I don't have enough balance in the account, the financer used to give the cash and I had deposited this cash in the bank to get is cleared the cheque presented in the bank account. I don't know that, to whom the financer has handed over my cheques and in whose deposited. (v) On account of this practice the substantial amount of cash is deposited in the current bank account during the financial year 2012- 13 and it is treated as unexplained credit in the bank account and income tax assessment is made accordingly. (vi) I became so indebted due to heavy rate of interest that I had to close my factory. Then after, the lenders were bothered and harassed me for long time. I tried to suicide 2/3 times. But I was saved by strangers one or other way. At last, having been bored, my father sold our house and paid to all the lenders. At present I serve in a embroidery factory on daily basis of Rs.300/- and make my living. So, I request humbly that, please release me from this case otherwise my family will be in great trouble since now they are living on my salary. 5. Except the ground of appeal there is no other submissions/records were filed before us, which clearly shows that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the above appeal. Further, as it can be seen from the proceeding of the lower authorities, the assessee has not furnished any details either before the Assessing Officer nor before the Ld. CIT(A). In the absence of the same, the assessee having not discharged it is onus, as provided under Section 68 of the Act, the addition made by the Assessing Officer cannot be disturbed. Therefore, we have no hesitation in confirming the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and thus, the grounds ITA No.456/Ahd/2018 A.Y. 2013-14 5 of appeal raised by the assessee are devoid of merits and the same are hereby rejected. As far as the affidavit filed by the assessee before us, the Affidavit is also not supported with the any other evidences, so the same is also rejected. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed. Order pronounced in the Court on 03.05.2023 at Ahmedabad. Sd/- Sd/- SSdS/- Sd/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER True Copy (T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad, dated 03/05/2023 Tanmay, Sr. P.S. TRUE COPY आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ / The Appellant 2. Ĥ×यथȸ / The Respondent. 3. संबंͬधत आयकर आय ु Èत / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आय ु Èत)अपील (/ The CIT(A)- 5. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध ,आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण,राजोकट/DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad, 6. गाड[ फाईल /Guard file. आदेशान ु सार/ BY ORDER, सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, ITAT, Ahmedabad