HARISH JAJODIA, MUMBAI V. ACIT - 20(1) (PRESENT ACIT - 24(2)), MUMBAI

ITA 6136/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9832 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 17-10-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH KUMAR YADAV
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure
• Section: 69C; 143(3)

Judgement Text

P A G E | 1 ITA NO. 6136/MUM/2016 AY: 2006 - 07 HARISH JAJODI A VS. ACIT - 20(1) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, M UMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, AM AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM ITA NO. 6136/MUM/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006 - 07) HARISH JAJODI A 601/602, THACKER APARTMENTS, JUHU CROSS LANE, ANDHERI (WEST), MUMBAI - 400058 / VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX - 20(1) , MUMBAI [ PRESENT ACIT - 24(2) MUMBAI ] ./ ./ PAN NO. AADPJ2045H ( / APPELLANT) : ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : MS. PRAKASH JOTWANI , A.R / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI RAJESH KUMAR YADAV, D.R / DATE OF HEARING : 2 1 .03.2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 2 3 .03.2018 / O R D E R PER RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) - 51, MUMBAI , DATED 04.07.2016 , WHICH IN ITSELF ARISES FROM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O UNDER SEC. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT ACT), DATED 21.02.2014 FOR P A G E | 2 ITA NO. 6136/MUM/2016 AY: 2006 - 07 HARISH JAJODI A VS. ACIT - 20(1) A.Y 2006 - 07. THE ASSESSEE ASSAILING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HAD RAISED BEFORE US THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : 1.(A) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS OF RS. 2,15,660/ - . THE SAME SHALL BE DELETED IN FULL . 2.(A) THE LEARNED CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAD PROVIDED SOURCES OF INCURRING EXPENSES ON CREDIT CARD BY HIS WIFE AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT AS WELL DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. (B) THE LEARNED CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FACT, THAT APPELLANT HAD SUBMITTED COPY OF RETURN OF INCOME FILED ALONG WITH BALANCE SHEET AND CAPITAL ACCOUNT, WHICH PROVIDED ENTIRE DETAIL OF SOURCE OF PAYMENT OF CREDIT CARD BILL. H ENCE, THE CONTENTION OF LD. CIT (A) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT GIVEN ANY PROOF FOR SOURCE AND GENUINENESS OF DEPOSIT IS NOT TENABLE. 3. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD TO, ALTER, AMEND, MODIFY OR DELETE ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT CASE LIES IN A NARROW COMPASS. THE A.O ON THE BAS IS OF AIR INFORMATION REOPENED THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.4,31,320/ - IN RESPECT OF PAYMENT MADE TOWARDS CREDIT CARD OF ABN AMRO BANK . AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) . THE CIT(A) PERSUADED BY THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE TWO ENTRIES AGAINST CREDIT CARD PAYMENT WERE DUPLICATE ENTRIES, DIRECTED THE A.O TO VERIFY THE SAME. HOWEVER, AS THE A.O FAILED TO VERIFY THE DUPLICITY OF THE ENTRIES, THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO RS.2 ,15,660/ - . THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE CASH DEPOSIT UNDER CONS IDERATION WAS MADE BY HIS WIFE DID NOT FIND FAVOUR WITH THE CIT(A) , WHO REJECTED THE SAME FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO SUBSTANTIA TE THE GENUINENESS OF HIS CLAIM AND PROVE THE SOURCE OF INCOME OF HIS WIFE. 3. THE ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED WITH THE PART SUSTAINING OF THE ADDITION OF RS.2,15,660/ - BY THE CIT(A) HAD CARRIED THE MATTER IN P A G E | 3 ITA NO. 6136/MUM/2016 AY: 2006 - 07 HARISH JAJODI A VS. ACIT - 20(1) APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (FOR SHORT A.R) FOR THE ASSESS EE SUBMITTED THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAD FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT AS THE PAYMENT OF RS.2,15,660/ - TOWARDS CRE DIT CARD OF ABN AMRO BANK WAS MADE BY THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE , VIZ. MRS. NEHA JAJODIA OUT OF HER DULY EXPLAINED SOURCES, THEREFORE, NO ADVERSE INFERENCES WERE LIABLE TO BE DRAWN IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. A.R IN ORDER TO DRIVE HOME HIS AFORESAID CONTENTION TOOK US THROUGH THE RETURN OF INCOME OF MRS. NEHA JAJODIA FOR A.Y 2006 - 07. THE LD. A.R TOOK US THROUGH THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT ACCOMPANYING THE SAID RETURN OF INCOME, WHEREIN THE SAID C REDIT CARD EXPENSES STOOD DEBI TED. THE LD. A.R IN ORDER TO FORTIFY HIS AFORESAID CLAIM , DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE EXTRACT OF C ASH BOOK OF MRS. NEHA JAJODI A FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION , WHICH REVEALED THAT THE PAYMENT OF RS.2,15,660/ - WAS DULY RECORDED AND WAS SOURCED FROM THE SAME . IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT THOUGH THE AFORESAID DOCUMENTS WERE PLACED ON THE RECORD OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, BUT HOWEVER, THEY HAD FAILED TO APPR ECIATE THE TRUE FACTUAL POSITION AS EMERGED THEREFROM. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (FOR SHORT D.R) RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES FOR BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE HAVE DELIBERATED ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT NOW WHEN THE PAYMENT OF RS.2,15,660/ - TOWARDS CREDIT CARD OF ABN AMRO BANK WAS MADE BY THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSE E, VIZ. MRS. NEHA JAJODI A, FROM HER DULY ACCOUNTED SOURCE S AS OBSERVED BY US HEREINABOVE, THEREFORE, NO ADVERSE INFERENCES LEADING TO AN ADDITION OF THE SAID AMOUNT AS AN UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE UNDER SEC. 69C WAS CALLED FOR IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. WE THUS IN TERMS OF OUR AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS DELET E P A G E | 4 ITA NO. 6136/MUM/2016 AY: 2006 - 07 HARISH JAJODI A VS. ACIT - 20(1) THE ADDITION OF RS.2,15,660/ - AS HAD BEEN SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A). THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS SET ASIDE. 5. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNC ED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 3 .03.2018 S D / - S D / - (G.S. PANNU) (RAVISH SOOD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI ; 23 .03 .2018 PS. ROHIT / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE . //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI P A G E | 5 ITA NO. 6136/MUM/2016 AY: 2006 - 07 HARISH JAJODI A VS. ACIT - 20(1)