Dushyant Manilal Pandya, Sabarkantha V. Income Tax Officer,S.K.Ward-2,Himatnagar, Himatnagar

ITA 839/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6069 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-01-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 28-01-2020
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 04-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: L P JAIN
• Keywords: Unexplained investment
• Section: 143(3); 69

Judgement Text

ITA NO.839/AHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 PAGE 1 OF 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD C BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.839/AHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 DUSHYANT MANILAL PANDYA VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 01, ARVALLI SOCIETY, S.K. WARD 2, HIMMATNAGAR. NR. PARAS KEROSIN PUMP, VALASANA ROAD, AT & POST: IDAR, DIST. SABARKANTHA 383 430. [PAN AKOPP 5443 N] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI TEJ SHAH, A.R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI L.P. JAIN, SR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 28.01.2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.01.2020 O R D E R PER MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE INSTANT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTE D AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22.01.2016 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-2, AHMEDABAD, A RISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 30.01.2015 PASSED BY THE LEARNED ITO, WARD-2, HIMAT NAGAR UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO A S THE ACT) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2. THE APPEAL RELATES TO CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION M ADE BY REVENUE TO THE TUNE OF RS.1,57,87,188/- UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT. IT AP PEARS THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS FINALISED BY THE ITO BY MAKING ADDITION OF RS.2,83, 70,370/- OUT OF WHICH RS.1,57,87,188/- RELATES TO THE DEPOSIT OF CASH IN BANK ACCOUNTS AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.1,22,73,500/- RELATES TO THE PURCHASE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY AND THE STAMP DUTY EXPENSES THEREON. THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN APPEAL RESTRICTED SUCH ADDITION ONLY IN RESPECT OF THE CASH DEPOSITED IN THE 4 ACCO UNTS TO THE TUNE OF RS.1,57,87,188/-. HENCE THE INSTANT APPEAL BEFORE US. ITA NO.839/AHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 PAGE 2 OF 3 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE INSTANT APPEAL, TH E LEARNED ADVOCATE APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT HE JOI NS ISSUE ONLY IN RESPECT OF THE ADDITION OF RS.48,50,000/- WHICH WAS TRANSFERRED FR OM ONE SAVINGS BANK TO ANOTHER SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE DETAILS I N RESPECT OF THOSE ACCOUNTS LYING WITH HDFC BANK BEING ACCOUNT NO.16991930000361, AXI S BANK BEING ACCOUNT NO. 911010034403198 AND DENA BANK BEING ACCOUNT NO. 033 210033259 INCLUDING THE STATEMENTS THEREOF BEING PART OF THE PAPER BOOK BEF ORE US HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE. IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE LE ARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ADDING THE ENTIRE CREDIT ENTRIES INCLUDING THE TOTAL AMOUNT WHICH HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED FROM THESE 2 ACCOUNTS LYING WITH HDFC B ANK AND AXIS BANK TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE LYING WITH THE DENA BANK TO THE TUN E OF RS.48,50,000/-. HE, THEREFORE, PRAYS FOR EXCLUSION OF THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.48,50, 000/-, WHICH HOWEVER HAS FAIRLY NOT BEEN OBJECTED BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENT ATIVE. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTI ES. THE ADDITION OF RS.1,57,87,188/- UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT IN RE SPECT OF THE AMOUNT CREDITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT IS IN DISPUTE. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME O F HEARING, IT IS THE CONTENTION ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND FAIRLY SO THAT THE ASSES SEE SEEKS RELIEF TO THE EXTENT OF RS.48,50,000/- IN AGGREGATE WHICH SUM REPRESENTS TH E TRANSFER OF VARIOUS AMOUNTS FROM ONE ACCOUNT TO ANOTHER MAINTAINED BY THE ASSES SEE. IT IS THUS CONTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AMOUNT WHICH HAS AL READY BEEN CONSIDERED AS UNEXPLAINED IN ONE ACCOUNT CANNOT BECOME UNEXPLAINE D YET AGAIN WHEN TRANSFERRED IN OTHER ACCOUNT FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVOCATION OF SECT ION 69 OF THE ACT. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES WERE PLACED BEFORE US TO DEMONSTRATE THAT AN AGGREGATE SUM OF RS.48,50,000/- FORMS PART OF THE REMAINING AMOUNT O F ADDITION AND HAS BEEN ADDED YET AGAIN MERELY ON ACCOUNT OF SHIFTING OF THE SUMS FROM ONE ACCOUNT TO ANOTHER. WE FIND TANGIBLE MERIT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR EXCLUSION OF RS.48,50,000/- IN AGGREGATE OUT OF THE TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.1,57,87,1 88/- MADE ON THIS ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. IN VIEW OF THE DIRECT EVID ENCES AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO GRANT RELIEF TO THE EXTENT OF RS.48,50,000/- OUT OF THE ADDITIONS MADE UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT. THE REMAINING AM OUNT OF ADDITION UNDER SECTION 69 HAS REMAINED UNCONTESTED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND, T HEREFORE, WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) ON THE REMAINING A MOUNTS. ITA NO.839/AHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 PAGE 3 OF 3 5. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOW ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 30 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2020. SD/- SD/- PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA MS. MADHUMITA ROY (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AHMEDABAD, THE 30 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2020 PBN/* COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER UE COPY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD