Shrutiben V Patel, Ahmedabad V. The ITO, Ward-4(2)(5), Ahmedabad

ITA 656/AHD/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7861 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-07-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 15-04-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Revised return; TDS
• Section: 68; 271(1)(c); 201

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरणआयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद 瀈यायपीठ अहमदाबाद 瀈यायपीठअहमदाबाद 瀈यायपीठ अहमदाबाद 瀈यायपीठ ‘SMC’ अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद।अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD ] ] BEFORE SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.656/Ahd/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shrutiben V. Patel 60, Shangrilla Bungalows Thaltej Ahmedabad. PAN : ANUPP 1796 K Vs ITO, Ward-4(2)(5) Ahmedabad. (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee by : Shri Suchit Patel, AR Revenue by : Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr.DR स ु नवाई क तार ख/D a t e o f H e a r i n g : 1 9 / 0 4 / 2 0 2 2 घोषणा क तार ख /D a t e o f P r o n o u n c e m e n t : 1 3 / 0 7 / 2 0 2 2 आदेश/O R D E R PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER The present appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Ahmedabad (in short referred to as CIT(A)), dated 7.3.2019 pertaining to Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Ground No.1 raised by the assessee in her appeal reads as under: “1. The ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the stand of the AO that the assessee has not deducted TDS on purchase of property, though value of consideration paid by the assessee was less than Rs.50 lakhs.” ITA No.656/Ahd/2019 2 3. As transpires from the orders of the authorities below, the issue raised in the above ground is that the assessee had purchased a property whose value was of Rs.2.35 crores and no TDS was deducted thereon on the payment made for the same, under section 194IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short). The assessee had contended that her share in the said property was only Rs.32,25,000/- since she was joint holder with others, and the amount paid was less than Rs.50 lakhs, and therefore, provisions of section 194IA were not attracted. Her contention was dismissed and it was held that the assessee was liable to deduct TDS on the amount paid for the purchase of the property and having not done so, the AO had noted in his order that intimation of non-deduction of TDS was being forwarded to the concerned TDS Officer for passing order under section 201 of the Act and for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Against this, the assessee went in appeal before the ld.CIT(A) who found no infirmity in the order of the AO. 4. We have considered facts before us and we hold that on account of finding of the AO below that the assessee was required to deduct TDS under section 194IA of the Act and he has intimated to the concerned TDS Officer, no grievance arose to the assessee. Necessary action, if any, to be taken by the assessee, is to be taken in the concerned proceedings under section 201 and 276C of the Act. This ground raised by the assessee is dismissed as non- maintainable. 5. Ground No.2 raised in the appeal reads as under: “2. The ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO treating difference of opening cash balance mentioned in cash ITA No.656/Ahd/2019 3 book and closing cash balance mentioned in the Income Tax Return for Asst.Year 2014-15 of Rs.2,14,250/- as unexplained cash credit.” 6. The orders of the authorities below reveal that addition to the income of the assessee was made of Rs.2,14,250/- on account of difference in opening cash balance in the books of the assessee. The AO found that the assessee had overstated the opening balance by Rs.2,14,250/-. To this, the ld.counsel for the assessee had contended that original return filed for Asst.Year 2014-15 had been subsequently revised; but while filing revised return, the consultant had incorporated figures of the old balance sheet and had not incorporated the figures of revised balance sheet in the said return. Copy of original & revised return was filed to the AO. The AO was not satisfied with the same, and made addition of the difference as unexplained credits, and unexplained income of the assessee for year, under section 68 of the Act. The same was upheld by the ld.CIT(A) stating that no cogent explanation was filed by the assessee to explain the difference. 7. Before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee reiterated contentions made before the lower authorities that difference had been explained as being on account of revised return filed for the said year without incorporating changes in the figure of the balance sheet on account of revised figures. 8. We have heard both the parties; we have noted that authorities below have, without considering reply of the assessee, made and confirmed addition on account of opening cash balance overstated by the assessee in the impugned year. It is not denied that the assessee had furnished explanation that the difference was on account of revision of return of income and the balance sheet figures ITA No.656/Ahd/2019 4 not being revised in the return filed. The assessee had demonstrated the fact of Revision of Return also. But the authorities below did not even care to consider the same; not a whisper in both the orders as to why the explanation was unsatisfactory for the said purpose. In view of the same, we find no reason to uphold the addition. Impugned addition made is therefore directed to be deleted. This ground is allowed. 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the Court on 13 th July, 2022 at Ahmedabad. Sd/- Sd/- (T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad, dated 13/07/2022