ITO, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD V. SHYAM RANCHHODLAL GANATRA, SATELLITE AHMEDABAD

ITA 694/AHD/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5660 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-07-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 14-07-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 09-04-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: FORTHEREVENUESHRISUDHENDUDAS; FORTHEREVENUECOULDNOTPLACEONRECORDANYTHING

Judgement Text

xplanation INTHEINCOMETAXAPPELLATETRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD“B”BENCH Before:Smt.AnnapurnaGupta,AccountantMember AndShriT.RSenthilKumar,JudicialMember TheI.T.O, Ward3(3)(5), Ahmedabad. (Appellant) Vs ShyamRanchhodlalGanatra. B-503,BWing, PratyakshKarBhawan, Panjarapole, Ambawadi Ahmedabad-380015. PAN:AEBPG9812K (Respondent) RevenueRepresented:ShriSudhenduDas,Sr-DR AssesseeRepresented:ShriBirenShah,AR Dateofhearing:15.07.2024 Dateofpronouncement:24.07.2024 आदेश/ ORDER PERT.R.SENTHILKUMAR,JUDICIALMEMBER ThisappealisfiledbytheRevenueasagainsttheappellate orderdated12.02.2024passedbytheNationalFacelessAppeal Centre,Delhi,arisingoutoftheex-parteassessmentorderpassed undersection144oftheIncome-taxAct,1961[hereinafterreferred toas‘theAct’]relatingtotheAsst.Year2017-18. 2.Thebrieffactofthecaseisthattheassesseeisengagedinthe RealEstateBusiness.Duringthedemonetizationperiodthe assesseemadecashdepositsinAxisBankandduringnon demonetizationperiodinallamountingtoRs.23,62,00,066/-.The assesseewasaskedtoexplaintheabovecashdeposits.However,the assesseefailedtomakereplytotheshow-causenoticeswhichhas ITANo.694/Ahd/2024 AssessmentYear:2017-18 ITANo.694/Ahd/2024 ITOVsShyamRanchhodlalGanatra Asst.Year2017-18PageNo. 2 resultedinpassingex-parteassessmentorder,makingadditionof Rs,12,15,37,169u/s.69AoftheActandalsotaxedthesame u/s.15BBEoftheActanddemandedtaxthereon 3.Aggrievedagainsttheex-parteordertheAssesseefiledappeal beforetheLd.CIT(A),whereinadditionalevidenceswerefiled.The Ld.NFACcalledforRemandReportfromtheAssessingOfficerand thusconfirmedtheadditionofRs.1,05,000/-andbankinterestof Rs.51,433/-anddeletedthebalanceadditionofRs.12,13,80,736/- byobservingasfollows: “...Ihavecarefullyconsideredthefactsofthecasesubmissionmade bytheappellant,orderpassedu/s144oftheActremandreport submittedbytheAssessingOfficerandsubsequentlyrejoinderfiled bytheappellant.Allthedocumentaryevidenceshavebeenduly verifiedandplacedonrecordInthiscasetheAOwashaving informationthatduringthedemonetizationperiodtheassesseehas madecashdepositinvariousbankaccountandhasnotfiledhis returnofincomewithinthetimeprovidedaspertheprovisionofsec 139oftheAct.Duringtheassessmentproceedings,theassesseedid notprovidedexplanationregardingthesourceofcashdepositmade byhim.AccordinglytheAOhascompletedtheassessmentu/s144of theActbymakingtheadditionofcashdeposittotallingtoRs. 12,15,37,169/-asunexplainedinvestmentu/s.69AoftheAct. Duringtheappellateproceedings,beforeNFAC,theappellanthas explainedthesourceofthecashdepositedinthebankaccountby submittingtherelevantdocumentaryevidences.TheAOhasverified allthedocumentaryevidencesandacceptedintheremandreport thatallthebankentriesareverifiedandfoundtobecorrectwith supportingevidence.TheAOhasstatedthat,thecreditentriesare eitheramountreceivedfromthepartnershipfirmoftheappellantor theamountreceivedfromthefamilymembers/relativesofthe appellantandaresupportedbycopyofledgeaccount,PAN/Aadhar card,bankaccountandconfirmationsandsomeofthemhavebeen repaidinsubsequentyears.Intheremandreport,theAOhas reportedthatoutoftotalcreditofRs12,15,37,169/-,theappellant failedtoproduceconfirmationoflender,hisPANcopyandAadhar copyinrespectofonlyRs.1,05,000/-andthereforethesaidreceipts shallbeaddedu/s68oftheActandbankinterestreceived amountingtoRs51,433/-istobeaddedundertheheadincomefrom ITANo.694/Ahd/2024 ITOVsShyamRanchhodlalGanatra Asst.Year2017-18PageNo. 3 othersource'u/s56oftheAct.Consideringthedocumentary evidencessubmittedbytheappellant,andremandreportsubmitted bytheAssessingOfficer,theadditionofRs.1,05,000/-andbank interestofRs.51.433/-isherebyconfirmedandaccordinglythe appellantgetsthereliefofRs.12,13,80,736/-(12,15,37,169- 1.56.433)...” 4.Aggrievedagainstthesame,theRevenueisinappealbeforeus raisingthefollowinggroundsofappeals: a.TheLd.CIT(A)haserredinlawandonfactsindeletingtheAdditions ofRs.9,36,46,736/-madebyAOonaccountofunexplainedcredit transactioninbankaccount(includingcashdeposit)u/s.69AoftheIT Act. b.Theappellantcravesleavetoadd,alterand/ortoamendallorany thegroundbeforethefinalhearingoftheappeal. 5.TheLd.CIT-DR,appearingfortheRevenueShriSudhenduDas supportedtheorderpassedbytheAssessingOfficer. 6.PerContra,Ld.CounselShriBirenShah,appearingforthe asseseesupportedtheorderpassedbytheLd.CIT(A)whichwas passedaftergettingRemandReportfromtheAssessingOfficer.Thus, pleadedthatthegroundraisedbytheRevenueisliabletobe dismissed. 7.Wehavegivenourthoughtfulconsiderationandperusedthe materialsavailableonrecord.TheRevenuecouldnotplaceonrecord tosustaintheex-parteadditionmadebytheAssessingOfficer. However,duringthetheappellateproceedings,theassesseefiled necessarydetailswithevidencesbeforetheLd.CIT(A)whohascalled forRemandReportfromtheAssessingOfficertherebyconfirmedthe partoftheadditionsanddirectedtodeleteremainingaddition.The ITANo.694/Ahd/2024 ITOVsShyamRanchhodlalGanatra Asst.Year2017-18PageNo. 4 Ld.DRappearingfortheRevenuecouldnotplaceonrecordanything contrarytodeletethereliefgrantedbytheLd.CIT(A),whichwas basedontheRemandReportfromtheAssessingOfficer.Thus,we donotfindanymeritsinthegroundsraisedbytheRevenuewhich isliabletobedismissed. 8.Intheresult,theappealfiledbytheRevenueishereby dismissed. Orderpronouncedintheopencourton24/07/2024 Sd/-Sd/- (ANNAPURNAGUPTA)(T.R.SENTHILKUMAR) ACCOUNTANTMEMBERJUDICIALMEMBER (TrueCopy) Ahmedabad:Dated24/07/2024 Manish