Shri Bhupendra Ranchhodbhai Thakkar, Ahmedabad V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1),

ITA 696/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5863 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 01-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 10-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRADEEP KUMAR MAJUMDARSR
• Assessee Lawyers: S N DIVATIA
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, AHMEDABAD .., , BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.696/AHD/2011 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) BHUPENDRA RANCHHODBHAI THAKKAR FF-18, HARISHKUNJ SOCIETY NR.VEJALPUR GAM VEJALPUR,AHMEDABAD-380051 / VS. THE ITO WARD-7(1) AHMEDABAD $ ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : ADZPT 7125 R ( $' / APPELLANT ) .. ( ($' / RESPONDENT ) $') / APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.N. DIVATIA, AR ($'*) / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR MAJUMDAR,SR.DR +,*- / DATE OF HEARING 01/05/2017 ./0*- / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 19/ 05/2017 / O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, AM: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-XIV, AHM EDABAD [CIT(A) IN SHORT] DATED 16/12/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2009-10. ITA NO. 696/AHD /2014 BHUPENDRA RANCHHODBHAI THAKKAR VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 2 - 2. THE SHORT CONTROVERSY IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS TOWARDS ADDTION OF RS.8.09 LAKHS AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND DERIVES INCOM E FROM COMMISSION ETC. THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2009-1 0 WAS FILED AT RS.1,51,097/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT. IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) NOTICED THAT THE AIR INFORMATION SHOWED THAT ASSESS EE HAD PURCHASED IMMOVABLE PROPERTY FOR RS.62,92,000/- ON 17/10/2008 BEING PLOT NO.16 AT NEELKANTH GREENS, SHILAJ, AHMEDABAD JOINTLY WITH HIS BROTHER SHRI RAJESH THAKKAR. THE SOURCE OF THE AFORESAID INVEST MENT WAS ENQUIRED INTO. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT HE HAS RECEIVED RS.58 LAKHS TOWARDS SALE AGREEMENT OF THIS VERY PROPERTY FROM ONE SHRI M.A.PARMAR. THE AO HOWEVER DID NOT FIND THE EXPLANATION TOWARDS SOURCE OF INVESTMENT TO BE SATISFACTORY. ACCORDINGLY, AN ADDITION OF RS.33,00 ,500/- BEING 50% OF THE COST OF PROPERTY RS.66,01,000/- INCLUDING STAMP DUTY WAS ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. IN FIRST APPEAL, THE CIT(A) HOWEVER SUBSCRIBED T O THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS RECEIPT OF FUNDS FROM SHRI M.A.PARMAR TO THE EXTENT OF RS.58 LAKHS. NONETHELESS, THE SOURCE TOW ARDS THE DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT OF RS.8,09,000/- BEING RS.5 LACS TOWARDS INI TIAL PAYMENT AND ITA NO. 696/AHD /2014 BHUPENDRA RANCHHODBHAI THAKKAR VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 3 - RS.3.09 LAKHS INCURRED TOWARDS STAMP DUTY CHARGES WERE NOT ACCEPTED AS SATISFACTORY AND ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED. 5. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6. THE LD.AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI S.N.DIVATIA SUBM ITTED THAT INITIAL PAYMENT OF RS.5 LAKHS ON 15/04/2008 IS OUT OF OWN R ESOURCES IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, AS REGARDS STAMP DUTY CHARGES OF RS.3.09 LAKHS, THE LD.AR DREW BLANK AND COULD NOT G IVE ANY FIRM REPLY. 7. THE LD.DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED ON THE ORDE R OF THE CIT(A). 8. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE, AT THE FIRST INSTANCE, BEFORE THE AO CAME OUT WITH THE EXPLANATION THAT INITIAL PAYMENT OF RS.5 LAKHS IN A PRIL-2008 IS OUT OF ITS OWN RESOURCES. WE DO NOT FIND ANY REBUTTAL FROM TH E REVENUE ON THIS FACT. WE ALSO FIND THAT EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSE E IS PLAUSIBLE IN THE WAKE OF THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT AS PREVALENT IN THE COUNTRY WHERE SOME CASH IS NORMALLY PREFERRED TO BE KEPT IN CUSTODY FOR IMMEDIATE NEEDS. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REBUTTAL, W E FIND NO REASON TO DENY THE BENEFIT OF DOUBT TO THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDI NGLY, UNEXPLAINED INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS.5 LAKHS STANDS DELETED. HOWEVER, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION TOWARDS SOU RCE OF PAYMENT OF ITA NO. 696/AHD /2014 BHUPENDRA RANCHHODBHAI THAKKAR VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 4 - STAMP DUTY RS.3.09 LAKHS, WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE W ITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 19 / 05/2017 SD/- SD/- (..) ( ) ( S.S. GODARA ) ( PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 19/ 05 /2017 4..+,.+../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS !'#$%$' / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. $' / THE APPELLANT 2. ($' / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 567- 8- / CONCERNED CIT 4. 8- ( ) / THE CIT(A)-XIV, AHMEDABAD 5. 9:-+67 , 670 , 5 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. <, / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, (9-- //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 18.5.17 (DICTATION-PAD 8- PAGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS APPEAL-FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 18.5.17 3. OTHER MEMBER 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S.19.5.17 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 19.5.17 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER