Mr. SURESH MENGHRAJ SHROFF, MUMBAI V. DCIT-12(1)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 5734/MUM/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4387 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-09-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 06-09-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIJAY KUMAR P MENON
• Section: 143(3); 133A; 201; 69A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN , HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 5734 /MUM/201 9 (A.Y: 201 4 - 15) SHRI SURESH MENGHRAJ SHROFF SHEELA NIWAS RAMABAI CHEMBURKAR MARG VILE PARLE (E), MUMBAI - 400057 PAN: AAVPS3849Q V. DCIT 12(1)(1 ) ROOM NO. 223, 2 ND FLOOR AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MARINE LINES MU MBAI 400 020 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PRAKASH JOTWANI DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI VIJAY KUMAR P. MENON DATE OF HEARING : 04.06.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02 .09.2021 O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 20 , MUMBAI [HEREINAFTER IN SHORT LD.CIT(A)] DATED 29.07.2019 FOR THE A.Y. 201 4 - 15. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE IN THE APPEAL IS IN RESPECT OF CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF .10,00,000/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS UNACCOUNTED CASH U/S.69A OF THE ACT. 2 ITA NO.5734/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2014 - 15) SHRI SURESH MENGHRAJ SHROFF 3. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS ARE THAT, ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.11.2014 DECLARING INCOME OF .84,33,800/ - . THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETE D U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 28.12.2016 DETERMINING THE INCOME AT .94,33,800/ - . WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF .10,00,000/ - U/S. 69A OF THE ACT. ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS EXPLAINED THAT HE HAS SOLD HIS CAR AND RECEIVED .10,00,000/ - . TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM ASSESSEE SUBMITTED DOCUMENTS GIVEN BY RTO SHOWING NOC TO TRA NS FER THE CAR IN THE NAME O F PURCHASER. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISBELIEVED THIS DOCUMENT HOLDING THAT IT IS AN AFTER - THOUGHT . THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED .10,00,000/ - FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY U/S. 133A OF THE ACT AS NOTHING BUT UNACCOUNTED CASH OF TH E ASSESSEE. ON APPEAL THE LD.CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER . 4. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT A SSESSEE HUF SOLD THE CAR AND IT DID NOT BELONG TO ASSESSEE INDIVIDUAL BUT OWNED BY ASSESSEE HUF . LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT ASSESSEE HUF SOLD THE VEHICLE ON 09.11.2013 A ND THE PROFIT ON SALE OF CAR WAS ALSO REFLECTED IN ASSESSEE HUF BOOKS. REFERRING TO P AGE NO. 7 OF THE PAPER BOOK LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT PROFIT ON SALE OF CAR WAS 3 ITA NO.5734/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2014 - 15) SHRI SURESH MENGHRAJ SHROFF RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ASSESSEE HUF AT . 4,387 / - . LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS WAS ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE . 5. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRING TO PAGE NO. 55 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH IS THE BALANCE SHEET OF ASSESSEE HUF FO R THE YEAR ENDING 31.03.2012 SUBMITS THAT MERCEDES CAR APPEARED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF ASSESSEE HUF . THE BOOK VALUE OF WHICH WAS REFLECTED AT .8,00,000/ - AND THIS CAR WAS SOLD ON 09.11.2013 FOR .10,00,000/ - BY ASSESSEE HUF . LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRING TO PAGE NO. 9 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH IS THE DELIVERY NOTE , SUBMITS THAT THE DETAILS OF TIME AND DATE OF SALE OF CAR WAS SHOWN AND THE ADDRESS OF THE PURCHASE R WAS ALSO GIVEN. REFERRING TO PAGE NO. 10 OF THE PAPER BOOK , LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT COPIES OF PAN AND DRIVING LICENCE OF THE PURCHASE R WAS ALSO FURNISHED. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ALL THESE DETAILS GOES TO SHOWS THAT THE TRANSACTION IS GENUINE AND BELONGS TO ASSESSEE HUF . 6. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY U/S. 133A OF THE ACT IN SUN VISION GROUP .43,27,7000/ - WAS FOUND IN CASH AND THE PARTNER SHRI SHEELA NIWAS GAVE AN EXPLANATION AS TO THE DISCOVERED CASH IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY ITSELF AND THUS EXPLANA TION CANNOT BE TREATED AN AFTERTHOUGHT . ALL DOCUMENTS EXPLAINING THE TRANSACTION HAD BEEN DULY SUBMITTED TO TH E ASSESSING OFFICER AND 4 ITA NO.5734/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2014 - 15) SHRI SURESH MENGHRAJ SHROFF EXPLANATIONS WERE GIVEN. ASSESSEE HIMSELF IS AN ADVOCATE AND HAD COOPERATED WITH THE AUTHORITIES. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT THE DOCUMENT S SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE CAR WAS PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE HUF AND THAT SHRI. SURESH MENGHRAJ SHROFF AND ASSESSEE HUF ARE TWO SEPARATE ENTITIES IN THE EYES OF LAW. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT AT PAGE NO. 12 OF THE PAPER BOOK THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF CAR WHICH WAS DULY MAINTAINED AND THE PROFIT ON SALE OF CAR WAS DECLARED IN THE BOOKS OF ASSESSEE HUF . THEREFORE, INCOME WAS RIGHTFULLY DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN T HE HANDS OF ASSESSEE HUF AS THE OWNER OF THE CAR. THEREFORE, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT SINCE .10,00,000/ - HAS BEEN RIGHTFULLY DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE HUF, PROVISION S OF SECTION 69A OF THE ACT IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE IS NOT ATTRACTED. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR STRONGLY PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BEFORE US. THE DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE CLEARLY REFLECTS THAT T HE CAR BELONGS TO ASSESSEE HUF AND NOT TO THE ASSESSEE INDIVIDUAL . THE ASSESSEE HUF HAS RECORDED IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS THE PROFIT ON SALE OF THE SAID CAR WHICH 5 ITA NO.5734/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2014 - 15) SHRI SURESH MENGHRAJ SHROFF WAS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE HUF . THE DELIVERY NOTE CLEARLY SHOWS THE DATE AND TIME WHE N THE CAR WAS SOLD AND THE NAME OF THE PURCHASER. ON A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WE NOTICED THAT EVEN AFTER RECE IVING ALL THE EXPLANATIONS AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FROM THE ASSESSEE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT CARRIED OUT ANY ENQUIRY RATHER HE HAS SUSPECTED THE DOCUMENTS AND EXPLANATIONS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AS AN AFTERTHOUGHT WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES . THE EVIDENCES FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE EXPLANATIONS THEREON CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE ASSET MERCEDES BENZ C AR BELONGS TO THE ASSESSEE HUF . SINCE THE ASSET BELONGS TO THE ASSESSEE HUF NO ADDITION U/S.69A OF THE ACT IS WARRANTED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE U/S. 69A OF THE ACT. GROUNDS OF APP EAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 02 .09.2021 AS PER RULE 34(4) OF ITAT RULES BY PLACING THE PRONOUNCEMENT LIST IN THE NOTICE BOARD. SD/ - SD/ - ( S. RIFAUR RAHMAN ) (C.N. PRASAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI / DATED 02 / 09/2021 GIRIDHAR , S R. PS 6 ITA NO.5734/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2014 - 15) SHRI SURESH MENGHRAJ SHROFF COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A), MUMBAI. 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUM