Shri Sagalchand P. Anada, GANDHIDHAM V. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Gandhidham Range, GANDHIDHAM

ITA 80/RJT/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1288 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 08-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT [CONDUCTED THROUGH E-COURT AT AH MEDABAD] (BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA. NO: 80/RJT/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) SHRI SAGALCHAND P. ANADA, HARSIDHA TRANSPORT CO. SHOP NO. 1 TO 14, PLOT NO. 18, 12B, CHANDAN CHAMGER, GANDHIDHAM- KUTCH V/S ACIT, GANDHIDHAM RANGE, GANDHIDHAM (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: ABCPA 9667L APPELLANT BY : SHRI KALPESH DOSHI, C.A. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ARVIND KUMAR, SR. D.R. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 02 -05-201 6 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04-05-2016 PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. WITH THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE C ORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-II, RAJKOT DATED 17.01.2013 PER TAINING TO A.Y. 2009-10. ITA NO. 80/R JT/2013 . A.Y.2009-10 2 2. THE FIRST GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO THE ADDITION OF RS. 5,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/ S.68 OF THE ACT. 3. THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF TRANSPORTATION A ND HANDLING WORK. WHILE SCRUTINIZING THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE A.O FO UND CREDIT OF RS. 5,00,000/- IN THE NAME OF HIMAT B. SOLANKI. ASSESSE E WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE CREDIT ENTRIES IN THE LIGHT OF THE PROV ISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. IN RESPONSE THE ASSESSEE FILED A CONFIRMAT ION LETTER FROM THE CREDITOR ALONG WITH THE BANK DETAILS OF SHRI HIMAT B. SOLANKI. 4. ON PERUSING THE BANK STATEMENT, THE A.O FOUND THERE WAS A CASH DEPOSIT ON THE SAME DAY ON WHICH CHEQUE IS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. THE A.O COMPUTED THE CAPACITY OF THE LENDER AND ACC ORDINGLY TREATED RS. 5,00,000/- AND ADDED THE SAME U/S. 68 OF THE AC T. 5. ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) B UT WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL VEHEMENTLY STAT ED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUCCESSFULLY DISCHARGED THE INITIAL ON US CAST UPON IT BY SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. IT IS THE SAY OF THE LD. COU NSEL THAT INCOME-TAX DETAILS WERE FURNISHED BEFORE THE A.O AND IT WAS IN CUMBENT UPON THE A.O TO VERIFY THE DETAILS. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTEN TION, RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN THE CASE OF RANCHHOD JIVABHAI NAKHAVA IN TAX APPEAL NO. 50 O F 2011. RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF MEEN ABEN LAKHANI IN TAX APPEAL NO. 104 OF 2011. 6. PER CONTRA, THE LD. D.R. SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. ITA NO. 80/R JT/2013 . A.Y.2009-10 3 7. WE HAVE GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE ORD ERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE RE LEVANT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES BROUGHT ON RECORD AND REFERRE D TO BY THE LD. COUNSEL. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE JUDICIAL DECIS IONS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE, THERE IS NO DENYING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS F URNISHED COPY OF INCOME-TAX RETURN, PAN DETAILS AND THE BANK STATEME NTS OF THE LENDER. ONCE THE A.O GOT HOLD OF THE PAN OF THE LENDER, IT WAS HIS DUTY TO ASCERTAIN FROM THE A.O OF THE LENDER WHETHER IN HIS RETURN HE HAS SHOWN EXISTENCE OF SUCH AMOUNT OF MONEY AND HAD FUR THER SHOWN THAT THOSE AMOUNTS OF MONEY HAD BEEN LENT TO THE ASSESSE E. POSITION, HOWEVER, WOULD HAVE BEEN DEFINED IF THE CREDITOR WA S NOT AN INCOME- TAX ASSESSEE. 8. FOR THIS PROPOSITION, WE DRAW SUPPORT FROM THE DECI SION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT GIVEN IN THE CASE OF RANC HHOD JIVABHAI NAKHAVA (SUPRA). RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFOREME NTIONED OBSERVATIONS OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COU RT, WE DIRECT THE A.O TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 5,00,000/-. GROUND NO . 1 IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 9. GROUND NO. 2 RELATES TO THE ADHOC DISALLOWANCE OF R S. 1,56,420/- ON ACCOUNT OF PERSONAL EXPENSES. 10. THE LD. COUNSEL DID NOT SERIOUSLY CONTEST THIS GROU ND AND THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. ITA NO. 80/R JT/2013 . A.Y.2009-10 4 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 04- 05 - 2016 . SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (N. K. BILLAIYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD: TRUE COPY RAJESH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,RAJK OT